Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:22:22 -0600 | From | Tycho Andersen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] seccomp: add ptrace options for suspend/resume |
| |
Hi Kees, Andy,
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:16:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Hi Tycho, > > On 06/04, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE > > > > +bool may_suspend_seccomp(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > > > + return false; > > > > + > > > > + if (current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) > > > > + return false; > > > > > > Heh. OK, I won't argue with the new check too ;) > > > > Actually now that I think about it I agree with you, these checks > > don't seem necessary. Even inside a user namespace, if you can ptrace > > a process you can make it do whatever you want irrespective of > > seccomp, as long as it has the necessary capabilities. Once the > > seccomp checks are run after ptrace, they'll be enforced so you > > couldn't have it call whatever you want in the first place. > > Good ;) > > > Still, perhaps I'm missing something... > > Kees, Andy?
Any thoughts on removing may_suspend_seccomp() all together?
I sent v3 with this still in it, but I can send v4 without it if we are all in agreement.
Tycho
| |