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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5317DEC6.4060103@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:34:46 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> CC: "wad@...omium.org" <wad@...omium.org>, Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>, "dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>, "arndb@...db.de" <arndb@...db.de>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support On 03/01/2014 02:20 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:20:24AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> secure_computing() should always be called first in syscall_trace(), and >> if it returns non-zero, we should stop further handling. Then that system >> call may eventually fail, be trapped or the process itself be killed >> depending on loaded rules. > > [...] > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> index d4ce70e..f2a74bc 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> @@ -20,12 +20,14 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <linux/audit.h> >> +#include <linux/errno.h> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/sched.h> >> #include <linux/mm.h> >> #include <linux/smp.h> >> #include <linux/ptrace.h> >> #include <linux/user.h> >> +#include <linux/seccomp.h> >> #include <linux/security.h> >> #include <linux/init.h> >> #include <linux/signal.h> >> @@ -1064,6 +1066,10 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs *regs) >> { >> unsigned long saved_reg; >> >> + if (!dir && secure_computing((int)regs->syscallno)) > > Why do you need this cast to (int)? OK. I will remove it because gcc doesn't complain about it anyway. > Also, it's probably better to check for > -1 explicitly here. I wil fix it. > 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? -Takahiro AKASHI > Will > -- 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