[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be02c1974b028efcc2a0ec49dfedff456a78e156.camel@corsac.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 23:08:34 +0200
From: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...sac.net>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] yama: clarify ptrace_scope=2 in Yama documentation
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 13:52 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:47:23PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > Current phrasing is ambiguous since it's unclear if attaching to a
> > children through PTRACE_TRACEME requires CAP_SYS_PTRACE. Rephrase the
> > sentence to make that clear.
>
> I disagree that your sentence makes that clear. How about:
>
> > 2 - admin-only attach:
> > - only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace
> > - with ``PTRACE_ATTACH``, or through children calling
> > ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.
> > + only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace, either with
> > + ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` or through children calling ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.
>
> + only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace. This
> + restricts both ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` and ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.
Hi Matthew,
I'm no native speaker, both versions are fine by me but I liked keeping the
“children calling” part since the semantics are quite different for
PTRACE_ATTACH and PTRACE_TRACEME.
Regards,
--
Yves-Alexis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists