[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUJiXoc8Jq-fdTsx4oq9j8e-NHSiYOJdy37o6uy2cJZuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:41:56 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.5 2/2] seccomp: Future-proof against silly tracers
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
> return the value from pt_regs). This is silly; we should just
> return -ENOSYS.
>
> This is unlikely to ever happen on x86 because the return value in
> pt_regs starts out as -ENOSYS, but a silly tracer can change that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 11 +++++++++++
> kernel/seccomp.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Will, can you pick this, or some version of it, up in your
seccomp-for-ARM tree or wherever your development is?
--Andy
--
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