lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/5] Smack: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Jann Horn wrote:

> > Well, we can't really call out into audit from scheduler code, and the
> > previous versions of the patchsets didn't have PTRACE_MODE_SCHED, so it
> > had to be included in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB in order to make sure we're not
> > calling into audit from context switch code.
> >
> > Or did I misunderstand the question?
>
> If I understand Casey correctly, he is saying that your patch
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809251437340.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm/)
> doesn't include PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT for IBPB, but the previous v6 of
> your patch (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809121105330.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm/)
> did include it, and therefore Casey thinks that there is a specific
> reason why you removed PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT,

Quite honestly, I don't remember. I dont't think there is any deadlock
that'd be triggered by this.

> and therefore Casey is adding special-case logic for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED
> to Smack when simply using PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT would also work.
>
> I think that Casey should change ptrace_may_access_sched() to use
> "mode | PTRACE_MODE_SCHED | PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT".

Agreed, that should work.

Thanks,

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-16 13:45    [W:0.057 / U:6.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site