Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Lutomirski <> | Date | Thu, 24 May 2012 17:55:02 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call |
| |
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 05/24/2012 05:26 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> >> Just to clarify: are you suggesting that, for now, the traced behavior >> should be: >> >> process -> seccomp -> ptrace -> kernel? >> >> If so, I think the man page or something should have a big fat warning >> that seccomp filters should *never* allow ptrace (even PTRACE_TRACEME) >> unless they fully understand the issue. >> > > Yes, and yes. > >> In any case, I think that the UML interaction is missing the point. >> UML will *emulate* the seccomp filter. If it chooses to use host >> seccomp filters for some business, that's its business. > > I don't see why UML should have to emulate the seccomp filter. With the > proposed order, then it can simply use the seccomp filter provided by > the host. Furthermore, with this sequencing UML can actually *use* > seccomp to provide the simulation.
Hmm. I guess I agree. I'll shut up now :)
--Andy -- 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/
| |