[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order?
    On Mon, May 21, 2012 20:25, Roland McGrath wrote:
    > From a security perspective I think the natural expectation would be that
    > the seccomp check is on the values that will actually be used, without an
    > intervening opportunity to change anything.

    Actually, considering a tracer has full control over a traced process,
    it would make most sense from a security perspective to check both the
    traced task's seccomp filter, as well as the one for the ptracer for
    modified system calls (calls where any register poking at all was done).
    Otherwise a task could bypass its own seccomp filter by ptracing a hapless

    I mentioned this before, but I forgot why this option was dismissed.
    Probably because ptrace shouldn't have been allowed by the filter in
    the first place.

    The current patch does the seccomp check first and ignores any changes
    made via ptrace, just like the old seccomp did. So in that sense nothing

    Originally the seccomp filter check was in the fast path, so doing it
    after ptrace was tricky. But now it has been moved to the slow tracehook
    path it can easily be checked after the ptrace notification. That would
    change the behaviour SECCOMP_MODE=1 though, but probably nobody cares,
    as it can be argued that that was a security hole anyway (except if
    ptracing a seccomped task was disallowed, in which case moving it to
    the end doesn't change anything anyway).

    Another argument for moving it to the end is that it makes debugging
    seccomped tasks a lot easier, because the debugger sees the denied
    system call. With the current patch the tasks would silently die.



     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-21 22:01    [W:0.028 / U:4.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site