lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/4] seccomp: Implement SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS action
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> This series is the result of Fabricio, Tyler, Will and I going around a
>> few times on possible solutions for finding a way to enhance RET_KILL
>> to kill the process group. There's a lot of ways this could be done,
>> but I wanted something that felt cleanest. My sense of what constitutes
>> "clean" has shifted a few times, and after continually running into
>> weird corner cases, I decided to make changes to the seccomp action mask,
>> which shouldn't be too invasive to userspace as it turns out. Everything
>> else becomes much easier, especially after being able to use Tyler's
>> new SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL operation.
>>
>> This renames SECCOMP_RET_KILL to SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD and adds
>> SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS.
>
> I just took a very quick look and I'm not seeing anything that would
> cause any backwards compatibility issues for libseccomp. You could
> try running the libseccomp tests against a patched kernel to make
> sure; the README has all the info you need (pay special attention to
> the "live" tests, although those are pretty meager at the moment).

Ah-ha, perfect. Ran it now and yup, these all pass. Thanks!

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-14 23:11    [W:0.067 / U:1.772 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site