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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181002205259.GA16090@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20181002204722.GA9610@scapa.corsac.net> <20181002205259.GA16090@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:07:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJs-FQT93Og6ULiyugOs1nBCvMKXVrM_dnWTMLKj6ORLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] yama: clarify ptrace_scope=2 in Yama documentation
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@corsac.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, trivial@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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``.

PTRACE_TRACEME is done by the child, not the process with
CAP_SYS_PTRACE, so I still think the Yves-Alexis's is clearer. But if
other agree, I'm fine with it. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security