[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:13:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
CC: Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.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 05/21/2012 11:47 AM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
> 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.
>
Are you sure? This would mean that a seccomp program used by the
process to intercept its own system calls via SIGSYS would give
completely different results under UML than under native...
-hpa
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.
