linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] yama: clarify 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]

Message-ID: <5b06d90e5fd23633af4dfbb5f9c6cfa7607152cc.camel@corsac.net>
Date:   Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:54:42 +0200
From:   Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...sac.net>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 23:08 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> 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.
> 
Hi Kees, Matthew,

so what's the status on this? Who needs to acknowledge one wording or another?

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlu5ydIACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFt7oAgAued/FsFiGvk6U/RG3JEj5p5aRu6harAXqK/Mw8n1gEu0nGvZvFJn31eY
fcU8quTtbmiNR2oYrAxjri2dhVd2JLsKDZU1bhpcKk33jDOzhUjeKnJgLGY38Z01
5idfKSy0CEZ0FvYvpt7gOm3loFlbM0au9JgFszVwFM8Yartr5vH1mPlZUwGbrroH
RORqAkwVI+g8iK1vqq9fdCf9J5mwcYu0DR8STvP8Nx12zEDNeiCShvXDNNt5VKg3
BHVNPHvE8uKaZmlyYt1oy9ZKjjcHn6veVkKEKFRz/TVc+q/Z7G1cORzVb7GzIPGj
9GoIZP2+Wi+7KUqUYQnHZSfujd5BzQ==
=jfBM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----