[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090506215450.GA9537@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:54:50 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <markus@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86-64: seccomp: fix 32/64 syscall hole
* Markus Gutschke (顧孟勤) <markus@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 14:29, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > That's a pretty interesting usage. What would be fallback mode you
> > are using if the kernel doesnt have seccomp built in? Completely
> > non-sandboxed? Or a ptrace/PTRACE_SYSCALL based sandbox?
>
> Ptrace has performance and/or reliability problems when used to
> sandbox threaded applications due to potential race conditions
> when inspecting system call arguments. We hope that we can avoid
> this problem with seccomp. It is very attractive that kernel
> automatically terminates any application that violates the very
> well-defined constraints of the sandbox.
>
> In general, we are currently exploring different options based on
> general availability, functionality, and complexity of
> implementation. Seccomp is a good middle ground that we expect to
> be able to use in the medium term to provide an acceptable
> solution for a large segment of Linux users. Although the
> restriction to just four unfiltered system calls is painful.
Which other system calls would you like to use? Futexes might be
one, for fast synchronization primitives?
Ingo
--
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