linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] seccomp: Introduce SECCOMP_PIN

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: <CALCETrUs2Xso=Yztmcrx_7bmXYoPLpcHeNpQSgcbSbvM_Jkw5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:56:18 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "zhujianwei (C)" <zhujianwei7@...wei.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
        Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Hehuazhen <hehuazhen@...wei.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] seccomp: Introduce SECCOMP_PIN_ARCHITECTURE

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:49 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> For systems that provide multiple syscall maps based on architectures
> (e.g. AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64 and AUDIT_ARCH_I386 via CONFIG_COMPAT), allow
> a fast way to pin the process to a specific syscall mapping, instead of
> needing to generate all filters with an architecture check as the first
> filter action.

Can you allow specification of the reject action?  I can see people
wanting TRAP instead, for example.