Re: seccomp vs ptrace

2015-03-18 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Hi, I'm writing to ask about The seccomp

Re: seccomp vs ptrace

2015-03-18 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm writing to ask about >>> >>> The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is >>>

Re: seccomp vs ptrace

2015-03-18 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm writing to ask about >> >> The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is >> notified. (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes MUST NOT >>

Re: seccomp vs ptrace

2015-03-18 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Hi, > > I'm writing to ask about > > The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is > notified. (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes MUST NOT > allow use of ptrace, even of other sandboxed processes

Re: seccomp vs ptrace

2015-03-18 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Hi, > > I'm writing to ask about > > The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is > notified. (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes MUST NOT > allow use of ptrace, even of other sandboxed processes