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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans