[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202501201334.604217B7@keescook>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:34:39 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc: luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org, oleg@...hat.com, ldv@...ace.io,
mhiramat@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, olsajiri@...il.com, cyphar@...har.com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rafi@....io, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without
filtering
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe this syscall implementation should be reverted?
Honestly, that seems the best choice. I don't think any thought was
given to how it would interact with syscall interposers (including
ptrace, strict mode seccomp, etc).
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists