Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:52:59 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@corsac.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] yama: clarify ptrace_scope=2 in Yama documentation
Message-ID: <20181002205259.GA16090@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20181002204722.GA9610@scapa.corsac.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181002204722.GA9610@scapa.corsac.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:47:23PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> Current phrasing is ambiguous since it's unclear if attaching to a
> children through PTRACE_TRACEME requires CAP_SYS_PTRACE. Rephrase the
> sentence to make that clear.

I disagree that your sentence makes that clear.  How about:

>  2 - admin-only attach:
> -    only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace
> -    with ``PTRACE_ATTACH``, or through children calling ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.
> +    only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace, either with
> +    ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` or through children calling ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.

+    only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace.  This
+    restricts both ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` and ``PTRACE_TRACEME``.