[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603165451.GA20911@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:54:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>
Cc: Andrey Wagin <avagin@...il.com>,
LKML <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>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: add ptrace commands for suspend/resume
On 06/03, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:48:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, if we use PTRACE_O_ instead, it goes away automatically if
> > the tracer dies or does PTRACE_DETACH.
>
> IIRC the flag goes away, but we still have to do something in
> __ptrace_unlink to clear the seccomp suspended, so I'm not sure if the
> automatic-ness helps us.
But we do not need seccomp->suspended at all?
Unless I missed something PTRACE_O_ needs a one-liner patch (ignoring
the defines in include files),
--- x/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ x/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -692,6 +692,9 @@ u32 seccomp_phase1(struct seccomp_data *
int this_syscall = sd ? sd->nr :
syscall_get_nr(current, task_pt_regs(current));
+ if (unlikely(current->ptrace & PT_NAME_OF_THIS_OPTION))
+ return OK;
+
switch (mode) {
case SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT:
__secure_computing_strict(this_syscall); /* may call do_exit */
OK, and the same check in secure_computing_strict().
No?
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