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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:24:58 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <>
To:	AKASHI Takahiro <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:34:46AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 02:20 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:20:24AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > I'm slightly surprised that we do the secure computing check first. Doesn't
> > this allow a debugger to change the syscall to something else after we've
> > decided that it's ok?
> To be honest, I just followed other architectures' implementation.
> Can you elaborate any use case that you have in your mind?

My initial thought was that we should do the secure_computing check *after*
the debugger has finished messing around with the registers. However, I
suppose you'd have had to enable ptrace in your seccompd filter for that
scenario to occur, so there's probably not an issue here after all.

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