[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150602212722.GA32356@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:27:22 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: add ptrace commands for suspend/resume
On 06/02, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> > And I am not sure I understand why do we need the additional security
> > check, but I leave this to you and Andy.
> >
> > If you have the rights to trace this task, then you can do anything
> > the tracee could do without the filtering.
>
> I think _this_ check is required, otherwise the seccomp-ed task (in
> filtered mode) fork-s a child, then this child ptrace-attach to parent
> (allowed) then suspend its seccomd.
If you force (hack) that task to do this. And if the seccomp-ed task
does this by its own we do not care.
> And -- we have unpriviledged process
> de-seccomped.
Heh. The case when the priviledged CAP_SYS_ADMIN process escapes the
filtering is much worse I think ;)
But as I said I will nott argue, just I think this needs a bit of
documentantion. And I agree in advance with something like "better
be safe than sorry, we can always remove this later" comment or a
note in the changelog.
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