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, 23 Feb 2012 23:15:51 +0100
From:	"Indan Zupancic" <>
To:	"Will Drewry" <>
Cc:	"Roland McGrath" <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"Kees Cook" <>,
	"Andrew Lutomirski" <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it

On Thu, February 23, 2012 20:26, Will Drewry wrote:
> Seems like there's an argument for another return code,
> SECCOMP_RET_CORE, that resets/unblocks the SIGSYS handler since the
> existing TRAP and KILL options seem to cover the other paths (signal
> handler and do_exit).

What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is
no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set? And perhaps go for a blockable
SIGSYS? That way you only have KILL, ERRNO and TRAP, with the last
one meaning deny, but giving someone else a chance to do something.
Or is that just confusing?

I don't think there should be too many return values, or else you
put too much runtime policy into the filters.

Sending SIGSYS is useful, but it's quite a bit less useful if user
space can't handle it in a signal handler, so I don't think it's
worth it to make a unblockable version.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists