Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] seccomp: provide information about the previous syscall

[Paul Moore]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Kees Cook  wrote:
> Yeah, and if we break abi, we need to add further sanity checking to
> the parser to determine which "version" of seccomp_data we need. I'm
> not convinced that there is enough utility here to break ABI.

PLEASE do not break the seccomp ABI for this alone ... I'm still
trying to sort out the well intentioned, but extremely annoying
direct-wired x86 socket syscalls in 4.4 for libseccomp, I don't want
to have to deal with another big change for at least a month or two ;)

> (Though if we do, I'd like to add tid to the seccomp_data, which has
> been requested in the past to make some pid-based arg checks easier to
> do.)

Agreed, if we break anything, please add this.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] seccomp: provide information about the previous syscall

[Paul Moore]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Kees Cook  wrote:
> Yeah, and if we break abi, we need to add further sanity checking to
> the parser to determine which "version" of seccomp_data we need. I'm
> not convinced that there is enough utility here to break ABI.

PLEASE do not break the seccomp ABI for this alone ... I'm still
trying to sort out the well intentioned, but extremely annoying
direct-wired x86 socket syscalls in 4.4 for libseccomp, I don't want
to have to deal with another big change for at least a month or two ;)

> (Though if we do, I'd like to add tid to the seccomp_data, which has
> been requested in the past to make some pid-based arg checks easier to
> do.)

Agreed, if we break anything, please add this.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com