On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2016 11:38 PM, "Ingo Molnar" wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
>> > > syscall ent
On Jul 24, 2016 11:38 PM, "Ingo Molnar" wrote:
>
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
> > > syscall entry, then we'll confuse seccomp and audit. (The former
> > > isn't
On 07/25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Looks like that with minor changes the series has Oleg's Acked-by?
Yes, thanks, I think these changes are fine.
Oleg.
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
> > syscall entry, then we'll confuse seccomp and audit. (The former
> > isn't a security problem: seccomp is currently entirely insecure if
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
> syscall entry, then we'll confuse seccomp and audit. (The former
> isn't a security problem: seccomp is currently entirely insecure if a
> malicious ptracer is attached.)
Andy, sorry for delay. And for the noise.
I just want to say that I'll try very much to read this series
tomorrow. I have some concerns at first glance... but I feel that
most probably this is only because I already need to sleep ;)
Oleg.
Setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace is wrong: if we happen to do it during
syscall entry, then we'll confuse seccomp and audit. (The former
isn't a security problem: seccomp is currently entirely insecure if a
malicious ptracer is attached.) As a minimal fix, this patch adds a
new flag TS_I386_REGS_POKED
7 matches
Mail list logo