linux-kernel - Re: seccomp vs ptrace

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/