[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202111030838.CB201E4@keescook>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:14:47 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: selftests: seccomp_bpf failure on 5.15
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 01:22:19PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:26:26PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it a problem that the debugger can see the signal if the process does
> >> not?
> >
> > Right, I'm trying to understand that too. However, my neighbor just lost
> > power. :|
> >
> > What I was in the middle of checking was what ptrace "sees" going
> > through a fatal SIGSYS; my initial debugging attempts were weird.
>
> Kees have you regained power and had a chance to see my SA_IMMUTABLE
> patch?
Apologies; I got busy with other stuff, but I've tested this now. It's
happy and I see the expected behaviors again. Note that I used the patch
with this change:
-#define SA_IMMUTABLE 0x008000000
+#define SA_IMMUTABLE 0x00800000
Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists