| 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: <CALCETrUB1_1U-AXcgNfU232_J1Jdv61AC22KqYAkzHNpJhs8Hg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:39:00 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Stephane Graber <stgraber@...ntu.com> Subject: Re: seccomp vs ptrace On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm writing to ask about > > The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is > notified. (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes MUST NOT > allow use of ptrace, even of other sandboxed processes, without > extreme care; ptracers can use this mechanism to escape.) > > This basically means that seccomp cannot be safely used with for instance > an upstart based container. I've been told that Andy was working on > changing the order so that ptrace checks would be done before seccomp. > Is there any update on that? Is it likely to happen? Scrapped? No, just got stalled because I'm too busy. The code is here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=x86/seccomp but it's not really adequately tested. > > thanks, > -serge -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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