lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:55:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > * Rik van Riel (riel@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Yes, but do you care about the performance of syscalls
> > > which the program isn't allowed to call at all ? ;)
> >
> > Heh, no, but it's for every syscall not just denied ones. Point is
> > simply that ptrace (complexity aside) doesn't scale the same.
>
> seccomp is about CPU-intense calculation jobs - the only syscalls
> allowed are read/write (and sigreturn). UML implements a full kernel
> via ptrace and CPU-intense applications run at native speed.

Indeed. Performance is not an issue (in the short term at least, since
those syscalls will be probably network bound).

The only reason I couldn't use ptrace is what you found, that is the oom
killing of the parent (or a mistake of the CPU seller that kills it by
mistake by hand, I must prevent him to screw himself ;). Even after
fixing ptrace, I've an hard time to prefer ptrace, when a simple,
localized and self contained solution like seccomp is available.

The reason I called it seccomp and not restricted syscalls, is that I'm
not allowing Chris to choose which syscall to restrict. I restricted
only the ones that are required to be able to compute securely, hence
the name "seccomp" and not "restricted syscalls". Obviously I'm
restricting certain number of syscalls to create this seccomp mode.

I'm open to different solutions, I can even live with you forcing me to
use the fixed version of ptrace, but you must be confortable to take the
blame if it breaks ;). Personally I'm confortable to take the blame only
if seccomp breaks, it's so simple that it can't break. And with break I
don't mean 0xf00f, that's a minor issue that will be autodetected by the
system. I mean breaking like killing the ptrace parent right now... That
can be fixed up reasonably securely too, but it _can't_ be autodetected
easily (I keep cross logs for everything so I can trace it, but it
won't be an immediate/automated task like the 0xf00f or fcnlex).
-
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