Messages in this thread | | | From | Kees Cook <> | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:43:51 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ptrace, seccomp: add support for retrieving seccomp flags |
| |
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@docker.com> wrote: > Hi Kees, > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:08:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@docker.com> wrote: >> > With the new SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG, we need to be able to extract these >> > flags for checkpoint restore, since they describe the state of a filter. >> > >> > So, let's add PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FLAGS, similar to ..._GET_FILTER, which >> > returns the flags of the nth filter. >> >> Can you split this up into factoring out the nth helper, and then >> adding the new get? >> >> For naming, perhaps "GET_FILTER_FLAGS" instead of "GET_FLAGS" since >> there may be seccomp flags in the future, etc. > > Sure, I'll do both of these. > >> Is there any sane way to add the flags to the existing GET_FILTER? > > I looked at this, and I don't think so. Unfortunately, we didn't use > any structure for the output, it's just the raw bytes of the filter > with the length used as the return value. I suppose we could append > the flags after the bytes of the filter, but that seems... very ugly > :). Let me know if you want to go that route.
I think if we can make the new GET_FILTER_stuff interface more extensible, we should cover any future needs for per-filter content. BUt yeah, I agree, when I looked at this when I first mailed you about it, I agree: it looked more ugly to extend the existing GET_FILTER.
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Pixel Security
| |