On 06/03, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:48:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, if we use PTRACE_O_ instead, it goes away automatically if
> > the tracer dies or does PTRACE_DETACH.
>
> IIRC the flag goes away, but we still have to do something in
> __ptrace_unlink to clear the seccomp suspended, so I'm not sure if the
> automatic-ness helps us.
But we do not need seccomp->suspended at all?
Unless I missed something PTRACE_O_ needs a one-liner patch (ignoring
the defines in include files),
--- x/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ x/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -692,6 +692,9 @@ u32 seccomp_phase1(struct seccomp_data *
int this_syscall = sd ? sd->nr :
syscall_get_nr(current, task_pt_regs(current));
+ if (unlikely(current->ptrace & PT_NAME_OF_THIS_OPTION))
+ return OK;
+
switch (mode) {
case SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT:
__secure_computing_strict(this_syscall); /* may call do_exit */
OK, and the same check in secure_computing_strict().
No?
Oleg.
--
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/
