[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1a1bc708be543eb647df57b5eb0c0ef035baf8b.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:31:02 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>, Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
Xiaotian Wu <wuxiaotian@...ngson.cn>, WANG Rui <wangrui@...ngson.cn>, Miao
Wang <shankerwangmiao@...il.com>, Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>,
"loongarch@...ts.linux.dev" <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, linux-arch
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Chromium sandbox on LoongArch and statx -- seccomp deep
argument inspection again?
On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:09 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote:
> - just restore fstat and be done with it;
> - add a flag to statx so we can do the equivalent of just fstat(fd,
> &out) with statx, and ensuring an error happens if path is not empty in
> that case;
It's worse than "just restore fstat" considering the performance. Read
this thread:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-September/151320.html
> - tackle the long-standing problem of seccomp deep argument inspection (!).
Frankly I'm never a fan of syscall blocklisting. When I develop the
Online Judge system for the programming contest training in Xidian
University I deliberately avoid using seccomp. This thing is very
likely to break innocent programs with some system change innocent as
well (for example Glibc or libstdc++ update).
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists