[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130101751.GA23670@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:17:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@....ntt.co.jp>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
On 11/29, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> /*
> * These should never be seen by user programs. To return one of ERESTART*
> * codes, signal_pending() MUST be set. Note that ptrace can observe these
> * at syscall exit tracing, but they will never be left for the debugged user
> * process to see.
> */
> #define ERESTARTSYS 512
>
> So basically, if you respond with -ERESTARTSYS with no signal pending, you'll
> leak it to userspace.
Yes,
> It turns out this is already possible with
> SECCOMP_RET_TRAP (and probably ptrace alone,
Yes,
> The question is: do we care?
I think we do not care, debugger can do anything with the tracee.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists