Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754101AbaFXTUJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:20:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20318 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752607AbaFXTUF (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:20:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:18:15 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Alexei Starovoitov , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Andrew Morton , Daniel Borkmann , Will Drewry , Julien Tinnes , David Drysdale , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] seccomp: move no_new_privs into seccomp Message-ID: <20140624191815.GA3623@redhat.com> References: <1403560693-21809-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1403560693-21809-5-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1403560693-21809-5-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote: > > --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h > +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h > @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ > > #include > > +#define SECCOMP_FLAG_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0 /* task may not gain privs */ > + > #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP > > #include > @@ -16,6 +18,7 @@ struct seccomp_filter; > * system calls available to a process. > * @filter: must always point to a valid seccomp-filter or NULL as it is > * accessed without locking during system call entry. > + * @flags: flags under task->sighand->siglock lock > * > * @filter must only be accessed from the context of current as there > * is no read locking. > @@ -23,6 +26,7 @@ struct seccomp_filter; > struct seccomp { > int mode; > struct seccomp_filter *filter; > + unsigned long flags; > }; > > extern int __secure_computing(int); > @@ -51,7 +55,9 @@ static inline int seccomp_mode(struct seccomp *s) > > #include > > -struct seccomp { }; > +struct seccomp { > + unsigned long flags; > +}; A bit messy ;) I am wondering if we can simply do static inline bool current_no_new_privs(void) { if (current->no_new_privs) return true; #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP)) return true; #endif return false; return test_bit(SECCOMP_FLAG_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &p->seccomp.flags); } instead ? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/