From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751880AbcGYGie (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 02:38:34 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35667 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750898AbcGYGi3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 02:38:29 -0400
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:38:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/ptrace: Stop setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace code
Message-ID: <20160725063825.GB12474@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1466464928.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <8bacd629dcdbb97ee0626912c27a4a09f991b5dd.1466464928.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <CALCETrX=c=5=bJATY8s3ZxqkS3nf81O8gf7ta-f_hbBZFG0TUw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX=c=5=bJATY8s3ZxqkS3nf81O8gf7ta-f_hbBZFG0TUw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
> > syscall entry, then we'll confuse seccomp and audit.  (The former
> > isn't a security problem: seccomp is currently entirely insecure if a
> > malicious ptracer is attached.)  As a minimal fix, this patch adds a
> > new flag TS_I386_REGS_POKED that handles the ptrace special case.
> 
> Hi Ingo-
> 
> Could you apply this one patch for 4.8?  While I don't think it's a
> significant security issue in 4.7 or earlier, leaving it unfixed in
> 4.8 will introduce a potentially unpleasant interaction with some
> seccomp changes that are queued up in the
> security tree for 4.8.
> 
> It will have a trivially-resolvable conflict with -mm.
> 
> The rest of the series this is in can wait.

I don't mind the rest of the series either - could you please repost it (with the 
review feedback addressed)?

Looks like that with minor changes the series has Oleg's Acked-by?

Thanks,

	Ingo