[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140624193055.GA4482@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:30:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] seccomp: move no_new_privs into seccomp
On 06/24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> -struct seccomp { };
> >> +struct seccomp {
> >> + unsigned long flags;
> >> +};
> >
> > A bit messy ;)
> >
> > I am wondering if we can simply do
> >
> > static inline bool current_no_new_privs(void)
> > {
> > if (current->no_new_privs)
> > return true;
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> > if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP))
> > return true;
> > #endif
>
> Nope -- privileged users can enable seccomp w/o nnp.
Indeed, I am stupid.
Still it would be nice to cleanup this somehow. The new member is only
used as a previous ->no_new_privs, just it is long to allow the concurent
set/get. Logically it doesn't even belong to seccomp{}.
Oleg.
--
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