lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8
    Date
    Chris Wright  wrote:
    >Only difference is in number of context switches, and number of running
    >processes (and perhaps ease of determining policy for which syscalls
    >are allowed). Although it's not really seccomp, it's just restricted
    >syscalls...

    There is a simple tweak to ptrace which fixes that: one could add an
    API to specify a set of syscalls that ptrace should not trap on. To get
    seccomp-like semantics, the user program could specify {read,write}, but
    if the user program ever wants to change its policy, it could change that
    set. Solaris /proc (which is what is used for tracing) has this feature.
    I coded up such an extension to ptrace semantics a long time ago, and
    it seemed to work fine for me, though of course I am not a ptrace expert.

    I don't know whether ptrace + this tweak is a better idea than seccomp.
    It is just another option out there that achieves similar functionality.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.054 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site