linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] seccomp_filter: add process state reporting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:40:03 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kees.cook@...onical.com,
	eparis@...hat.com, agl@...omium.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	jmorris@...ei.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] seccomp_filter: add process state reporting

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:24:20PM -0500, Will Drewry wrote:

> Definitely.  Would it make sense to have /proc/<pid>/seccomp and
> /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter?

Just one question: WTF bother with S_IRUSR?  Note that it's absolutely
_useless_ in procfs; any kind of permission checks must be done in
read(2) time since doing it in open(2) is worthless.  Consider execve()
on suid binary; oops, there goes your uid and there goes the effect
of checks done by open(2).  And if you *do* checks in read(2), why bother
duplicating them in open(2)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/