On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:39:09AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 12:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:11:31AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> >> #include <linux/user.h>
> >> +#include <linux/seccomp.h>
> >> #include <linux/security.h>
> >> #include <linux/init.h>
> >> #include <linux/signal.h>
> >> @@ -1064,6 +1065,10 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct
> >> pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> unsigned long saved_reg;
> >>
> >> + if (!dir && secure_computing((int)regs->syscallno))
> >> + /* seccomp failures shouldn't expose any additional code. */
> >> + return -1;
> >
> > That's only restricted to the arm64 code but could we use a more
> > meaningful error number?
>
> Other architectures, including arm, also return just -1 in
> syscall_trace_enter(),
> but of course, we can use another value, say, -EPERM or -ENOSYS?
Actually we have another case of setting regs->syscallno = ~0UL in the
same function, so we could do the same (also in line with entry.S).
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
