[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304008096.18763.151.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:28:16 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kees.cook@...onical.com,
eparis@...hat.com, agl@...omium.org, mingo@...e.hu,
jmorris@...ei.org, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] seccomp_filter: Enable ftrace-based system call
filtering
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 22:08 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> The only other twist is that it is possible to delay enforcement by one
> system call by supplying a "on_next_syscall: 1" 'filter'. This allows
> for a launcher process to fork(), prctl(), then execve() leaving the
> launched binary in a filtered state.
I wonder if the more "unixy" thing to do is, instead of on_next_sycall,
have "enable_on_exec". Where the user could do multiple syscalls but the
filter will not take place until an exec is made?
-- Steve
--
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