[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:16 +0200
From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, indan@....nu,
pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order?
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org> wrote:
> Is that what we want? Do we want to do the permission check based on
> what a process ask at syscall enter or do we want to do the permission
> check based on what the kernel is actually going to do on behalf of
> the process?
I think we want the latter.
A system call emulator like UserModeLinux would benefit from that.
--
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
