linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] seccomp: Implement SECCOMP_RET_KILL

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:   Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:46:22 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        Fabricio Voznika <fvoznika@...gle.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Mathias Svensson <idolf@...gle.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] seccomp: Implement SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS action

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> This series is the result of Fabricio, Tyler, Will and I going around a
> few times on possible solutions for finding a way to enhance RET_KILL
> to kill the process group. There's a lot of ways this could be done,
> but I wanted something that felt cleanest. My sense of what constitutes
> "clean" has shifted a few times, and after continually running into
> weird corner cases, I decided to make changes to the seccomp action mask,
> which shouldn't be too invasive to userspace as it turns out. Everything
> else becomes much easier, especially after being able to use Tyler's
> new SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL operation.
>
> This renames SECCOMP_RET_KILL to SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD and adds
> SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS.

I just took a very quick look and I'm not seeing anything that would
cause any backwards compatibility issues for libseccomp.  You could
try running the libseccomp tests against a patched kernel to make
sure; the README has all the info you need (pay special attention to
the "live" tests, although those are pretty meager at the moment).

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com