linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] seccomp_filter: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering

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]

Message-ID: <BANLkTinrg3E_XYERndJ=fwgRNSmPHcsr9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:53:19 -0500
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 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?

That's what it was originally, but since ftrace syscalls doesn't wrap
sys_execve on x86, I opted to just say "next syscall".  But of course
I can just check the _NR_execve == syscall_nr and do the right thing.
Duh.

thanks!
--
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/