lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:20:24AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> secure_computing() should always be called first in syscall_trace(), and
> if it returns non-zero, we should stop further handling. Then that system
> call may eventually fail, be trapped or the process itself be killed
> depending on loaded rules.

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> index d4ce70e..f2a74bc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -20,12 +20,14 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/audit.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> #include <linux/user.h>
> +#include <linux/seccomp.h>
> #include <linux/security.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/signal.h>
> @@ -1064,6 +1066,10 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> unsigned long saved_reg;
>
> + if (!dir && secure_computing((int)regs->syscallno))

Why do you need this cast to (int)? Also, it's probably better to check for
-1 explicitly here.

I'm slightly surprised that we do the secure computing check first. Doesn't
this allow a debugger to change the syscall to something else after we've
decided that it's ok?

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-28 19:01    [W:0.360 / U:9.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site