Re: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@cpushare.com>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:42:42PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Well, then you can help auditing ptrace()... It is probably also true
> that more people audited ptrace() than seccomp :-).

Why should I spend time auditing ptrace when I have a superior solution
that doesn't require me any auditing at all? I've an huge pile of work,
I'm not doing this for fun, just thinking at wasting time auditing a
single line of ptrace code is insane as far as I'm concerned (if I can
avoid it with a more robust, less likely to break and simpler approach).
If the l-k community forces me to use ptrace, I'll be forced to do that
indeed (and you should be ready to take the blame if something goes
wrong), but be sure I'll try as much as I can to stay away from ptrace
completely.  ptrace is a debugging knob, uml itself is a debugging tool
that depends on a debugging knob and that's fine. I'm not doing a
debugging tool, I'm doing something that requires the maximum level of
security ever, and using ptrace is dead wrong for that IMHO.