[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:47:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
deneen.t.dock@...el.com, kristen@...ux.intel.com,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] Smack: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Yes. Since the PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT was in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB in Jiri's
> > previous patch set and not in PTRACE_MODE_SCHED in this one I assumed
> > that there was a good reason for it.
>
> Jiri, was there a good reason for it, and if so, what was it?
[ FWIW PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT being in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB goes back to original
Tim's pre-CRD patchset ]
Well, we can't really call out into audit from scheduler code, and the
previous versions of the patchsets didn't have PTRACE_MODE_SCHED, so it
had to be included in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB in order to make sure we're not
calling into audit from context switch code.
Or did I misunderstand the question?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
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.
