lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Add seccomp support
On 02/20/2014 01:41 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:39:09AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Actually we have another case of setting regs->syscallno = ~0UL in the
> same function, so we could do the same (also in line with entry.S).

I believe that I got you now, but we need to distinguish failure case of
seccomp and the existing (~0UL) case. In former case, depending on a bpf
rule loaded into the kernel, errno may be assigned to any arbitrary number
(not necessarily ENOSYS).
So I will use another value for this specific seccomp case.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-20 02:21    [W:0.064 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site