Re: [PATCH 3.5 2/2] seccomp: Future-proof against silly tracers

From: Will Drewry
Date: Thu Aug 02 2012 - 10:32:13 EST


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
>> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
>> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
>> return the value from pt_regs). This is silly; we should just
>> return -ENOSYS.
>>
>> This is unlikely to ever happen on x86 because the return value in
>> pt_regs starts out as -ENOSYS, but a silly tracer can change that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 11 +++++++++++
>> kernel/seccomp.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> Will, can you pick this, or some version of it, up in your
> seccomp-for-ARM tree or wherever your development is?

I'm still not sure about this change though the end result is nice.
Regardless, I'll explore it when I can -- my family has just increased
in size, so I'm going to be a bit delayed!

cheers!
will
--
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/