From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:12:39 +0100 Subject: [RESEND PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Add seccomp support In-Reply-To: <1404459115-8292-3-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> References: <1404459115-8292-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <1404459115-8292-3-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20140709111239.GH9485@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Akashi, On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 08:31:55AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > secure_computing() should always be called first in syscall_trace_enter(). > If it returns non-zero, we should stop further handling. Then that system > call may eventually fail, be trapped or the process itself be killed > depending on loaded rules. > In this case, syscall_trace_enter() returns a dedicated value in order to > skip a normal syscall table lookup because a seccomp rule may have already > overridden errno. [...] > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > index 70526cf..baab5fc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -21,12 +21,14 @@ > > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -1109,6 +1111,10 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, > > asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > + if (secure_computing(regs->syscallno) == -1) > + /* seccomp failures shouldn't expose any additional code. */ > + return -EPERM; > + > if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) > tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); We return regs->syscallno immediately after this, so we have the same issue that Kees identified for arch/arm/. Did you follow the discussion I had with Andy? Will