Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:54:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        davem@davemloft.net, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, eparis@redhat.com,
        serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com,
        indan@nul.nu, pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, markus@chromium.org,
        coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support
Message-ID: <20120227175407.GD10608@redhat.com>
References: <1330140111-17201-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <1330140111-17201-10-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1330140111-17201-10-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2129
Lines: 59

On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>
>  arch/Kconfig              |    1 +
>  include/linux/ptrace.h    |    7 +++++--
>  include/linux/seccomp.h   |    4 +++-
>  include/linux/tracehook.h |    6 ++++++
>  kernel/ptrace.c           |    4 ++++
>  kernel/seccomp.c          |   18 ++++++++++++++++++

FYI, this conflicts with the changes -mm tree.

The changes in ptrace.* confict with Denys's
"ptrace: simplify PTRACE_foo constants and PTRACE_SETOPTIONS code"

The change in tracehook.h conflicts with
"ptrace: the killed tracee should not enter the syscall"

> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,24 @@ int __secure_computing_int(int this_syscall)
>  			seccomp_send_sigsys(this_syscall, reason_code);
>  			return -1;
>  		}
> +		case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: {
> +			int ret;
> +			struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> +			if (!(test_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) ||
> +			    !(current->ptrace & PT_TRACE_SECCOMP))
> +				return -1;
> +			/*
> +			 * PT_TRACE_SECCOMP and seccomp.trace indicate whether
> +			 * tracehook_report_syscall_entry needs to signal the
> +			 * tracer.  This avoids race conditions in hand off and
> +			 * the requirement for TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE ensures that
> +			 * we are in the syscall slow path.
> +			 */
> +			current->seccomp.trace = 1;
> +			ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> +			current->seccomp.trace = 0;
> +			return ret;

To be honest, this interface looks a bit strange to me...

Once again, sorry if this was already discussed. But perhaps it would
be better to introduce PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP/PTRACE_O_SECCOMP instead?

SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: could simply do ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP)
unconditionaly. The tracer can set the option and do PTRACE_CONT if it
doesn't want the system call notifications.

This is also much simpler, no need to change ptrace/tracehook files.

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/