public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrathr@google.com, indan@nul.nu,
	netdev@parisplace.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net,
	tglx@linutronix.de, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
	pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	markus@chromium.org, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	keescook@chromium.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:56:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FBECAC2.6050303@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAObL_7GHEdoyzVPjhR5U0RvQhRP50e6YM83CkXifzUKOFb+KHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/24/2012 04:43 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> IMO the behavior should change.  Alternatively, a post-ptrace syscall
> should have to pass the *tracer's* seccomp filter, but that seems
> overcomplicated and confusing.
> 
> OTOH, allowing ptrace in a seccomp filter is asking for trouble anyway
> -- if you can ptrace something outside the sandbox, you've escaped.
> 

This is my suggestion: if there is demand, make it possible to install a
*second* seccomp filter program which is run on the result of the
ptrace.  I.e.:

Untraced:	process -> seccomp1 -> kernel

Traced:		process -> seccomp1 -> ptrace -> seccomp2 -> kernel

This is something we could add later if there is demand.

	-hpa



  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-24 23:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-21 18:21 seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? Eric Paris
2012-05-21 18:25 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-21 19:20   ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-22 16:23     ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 16:26       ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 17:39       ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 20:26         ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 20:34           ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 20:48             ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 21:07               ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 21:17                 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-22 21:18                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 22:20                   ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 21:09               ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 21:14                 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 21:37                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 16:07         ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:07           ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] seccomp: Don't allow tracers to abuse RET_TRACE Will Drewry
2012-05-24 17:54             ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 18:24               ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 20:17                 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 16:08           ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch/x86: move secure_computing after ptrace Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:08           ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] arch/*: move secure_computing after trace Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:13           ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 18:07             ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-24 18:27               ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 18:45                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 19:39                   ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 22:00           ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-25  1:55             ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 23:40           ` James Morris
2012-05-24 23:43             ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-24 23:56               ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2012-05-25  0:26                 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-25  0:38                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-25  0:55                     ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-21 18:47 ` seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? richard -rw- weinberger
2012-05-21 19:13   ` H. Peter Anvin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4FBECAC2.6050303@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=indan@nul.nu \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@mit.edu \
    --cc=markus@chromium.org \
    --cc=mcgrathr@google.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@parisplace.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
    --cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox