[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080616162543.GA9552@duo.random>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:25:44 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc: Ivana Varekova <varekova@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PR_SET_SECCOMP and PR_GET_SECCOMP doc (and bug?)
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> Below is my attempt to document the SECCOMP prctl() operations that you added
> in 2.6.23. Could you please read, and let me know if I have the details
> correct. Especially take a look at the description of PR_GET_SECCOMP, whose
> operation tends to suggest a thinko:
thanks for this useful doc effort!
>
> PR_SET_SECCOMP (since Linux 2.6.23)
> Set the secure computing mode for the calling thread. In
> the current implementation, arg2 must be 1. After the
> secure computing mode has been set to 1, the only system
> calls that the thread is permitted to make are read(2),
> write(2), _exit(2), and sigreturn(2). Other system calls
> result in the delivery of a SIGKILL signal. Secure comput-
> ing mode is useful for number-crunching applications that
> may need to execute untrusted byte code, perhaps obtained
> by reading from a pipe or socket. This operation is only
> available if the kernel is configured with CONFIG_SECCOMP
> enabled.
>
> PR_GET_SECCOMP (since Linux 2.6.23)
> Return the secure computing mode of the calling thread.
> Not very useful: if the caller is not in secure computing
> mode, this operation returns 0; if the caller is in secure
> computing mode, then the prctl() call will cause a SIGKILL
> signal to be sent to the process. This operation is only
> available if the kernel is configured with CONFIG_SECCOMP
> enabled.
>
> Have I misunderstood something? Surely it is not really intended that
No, the above is exactly correct.
> PR_GET_SECCOMP be this useless? The alternatives that I can think of would be
> that
I thought that registering a PR_GET_SECCOMP next to the SET operation
was nicer in case future modes > 1 will allow to enable/disable more
syscalls on demand (so including prctl), if you see the prctl.h file
has get/set and read/drop for all other prctl so retaining that
symmetry looked natural. However I tend to agree that currently
PR_GET_SECCOMP is mostly useless, so perhaps it was better not to
register it at all but it doesn't really make any practical
difference.
> a) at least the call prctl(PR_GET_SECCOMP) would be among the set of permitted
> syscalls in secure computing mode, or
It's very intentional that prctl isn't one of the permitted syscalls
with mode=1. Future modes may vary.
> b) there shouldn't be a prctl(PR_GET_SECCOMP) at all.
I'm not against if somebody wants to nuke GET_SECCOMP, I'm neutral on
this, but it doesn't really waste anything relevant and at least to
me, it looked cleaner to have it even if not useful with current
mode=1.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists