Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:29:05 +0100 (BST) | From | chris@scary ... | Subject | Re: secure computing for 2.6.7 |
| |
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 01:01:10PM +0100, chris@scary.beasts.org wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > > > Do you have plans to generalize seccomp into somelike like a "syscall > > firewall"? This _would_ be useful to many apps, and provide good security
[...]
> Seems like a few people is interested in what you suggest above. it'd be > very trivial to add a seccomp-mode = 2 that adds more syscalls like the > socket syscalls like accept/sendfile/send/recv and also the open syscall > (which means you want to use chroot still). In the code you can see I > wrote it so that more modes can be added freely. I mean it has some > flexibility already. vsftpd could enable the seccomp mode 2 on itself > after it has initialized.
Using the above approach, we (the app writers) would never agree on the syscall lists required for different seccomp modes ;-)
How hard would it be to have a per-task bitmap of syscalls allowed? This way, a task could restrict to the exact subset of syscalls required for maximum security. The bitmap would - Be allocated on demand (for no overhead in the common case) - Deny all syscalls not covered by the supplied bitmap, to cater for syscall table expansion - Be inherited across fork and (probably) shared across clone
Cheers Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |