Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:39:09 +0900 | From | AKASHI Takahiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Add seccomp support |
| |
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?
-Takahiro AKASHI
| |