From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <peterz@infradead.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B372B6EFF
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Sat, 14 May 2011 01:23:24 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system
	call filtering
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1305299455.2076.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1304017638.18763.205.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	<1305169376-2363-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<20110512074850.GA9937@elte.hu>
	<alpine.LRH.2.00.1105122133500.31507@tundra.namei.org>
	<20110512130104.GA2912@elte.hu>
	<alpine.LRH.2.00.1105131018040.3047@tundra.namei.org>
	<20110513121034.GG21022@elte.hu>
	<1305299455.2076.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:23:01 +0200
Message-ID: <1305300181.2466.72.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, "H. Peter
	Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, x86@kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, kees.cook@canonical.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, linux390@de.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, agl@chromium.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 11:10 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> Then again, I certainly don't see a
> reason that this syscall hardening patch should be held up while a whole
> new concept in computer security is contemplated...=20

Which makes me wonder why this syscall hardening stuff is done outside
of LSM? Why isn't is part of the LSM so that say SELinux can have a
syscall bitmask per security context?

Making it part of the LSM also avoids having to add this prctl().