linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ptrace,syscall_user_dispatch: add a getter/setter for sud configuration

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: <Y9ANOfzl+iZSBIEP@memverge.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 11:54:17 -0500
From:   Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        krisman@...labora.com, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, adobriyan@...il.com, corbet@....net,
        shuah@...nel.org, avagin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ptrace,syscall_user_dispatch: add a getter/setter
 for sud configuration

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:43:47PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I won't really argue, but...
> 
> On 01/24, Gregory Price wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:52:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/23, Gregory Price wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So i think dropping 2/3 in the list is good.  If you concur i'll do
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > Well I obviously think that 2/3 should be dropped ;)
> > >
> > > As for 1/3 and 3/3, feel free to add my reviewed-by.
> > >
> > > Oleg.
> > >
> >
> > I'm actually going to walk my agreement back.
> >
> > After one more review, the need for the proc/status entry is not to
> > decide whether to dump SUD settings, but for use in deciding whether to
> > set the SUSPEND_SYSCALL_DISPATCH option from patch 1/3.
> 
> Rather than read /proc/pid/status, CRIU can just do
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG unconditionally
> and check syscall_user_dispatch_config.mode ?
> 
> Why do want to expose SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH in /proc/status? If this task
> is not stopped you can't trust this value anyway. If it is stopped, I don't
> think ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG) is slower than reading
> /proc.
> 
> but perhaps I missed something?
> 
> Oleg.
> 

*facepalm* good point, i'm wondering if there's a reason CRIU doesn't do
the same for SECCOMP.

either way, going to drop it