[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 0/3] security: Yama LSM
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Roland McGrath <> wrote:
>> Do you have any objection to my LSM performing ptrace restrictions?
>> It's entirely self-contained, and all the major upstream crash
>> handlers are already using the prctl() interface it uses to declare
>> ptrace attach relationships.
> I don't have the context of what your LSM does.  But other LSMs apply their
> own rules in security_ptrace().  That's what the hook is for.  I'm not sure
> why we would object from the perspective of core ptrace functionality.
> LSMs are LSMs.  Their behavior is between you and your users, as far as I
> am concerned.  As experts on ptrace and aficionados of its users, we may
> have thoughts on what constraints on ptrace users would find annoying.
> But that doesn't mean we'd object per se to whatever bizarre constraints
> users want to ask an LSM to put on them.

Yup, that's precisely what Yama does as well. Sounds like you're not
naking an LSM that uses security_ptrace(), then.



Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-18 23:47    [W:0.049 / U:42.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site