Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/28, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Great. In this case this patch becomes really trivial. Just 2 defines
> >> in ptrace.h and the unconditional ptrace_event() under SECCOMP_RET_TRACE.
>
> hrm the only snag is that I can't then rely on TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE to
> ensure seccomp is in the slow-path.  Right now, on x86, seccomp is
> slow-path, but it doesn't have to be to have the syscall and args.
> However, for ptrace to behavior properly, I believed it did need to be
> in the slow path.  If SECCOMP_RET_TRACE doesn't rely on
> PTRACE_SYSCALL, then it introduces a need for seccomp to always be in
> the slow path or to flag (somehow) when it needs slow path.

My understanding of this magic is very limited, and I'm afraid
I misunderstood... So please correct me.

But what is the problem? system_call checks _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY
which includes _TIF_SECCOMP | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE, and jumps to
tracesys which does SAVE_REST.

Anyway. secure_computing() is called by syscall_trace_enter() which
also calls tracehook_report_syscall_entry(). If SECCOMP_RET_TRACE
can't do ptrace_event() then why tracehook_report_syscall_entry() is
fine?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/