On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>
> #include <uapi/linux/seccomp.h>
>
> +#define SECCOMP_FLAG_NO_NEW_PRIVS 0 /* task may not gain privs */
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
>
> #include <linux/thread_info.h>
> @@ -16,6 +18,7 @@ struct seccomp_filter;
> * system calls available to a process.
> * @filter: must always point to a valid seccomp-filter or NULL as it is
> * accessed without locking during system call entry.
> + * @flags: flags under task->sighand->siglock lock
> *
> * @filter must only be accessed from the context of current as there
> * is no read locking.
> @@ -23,6 +26,7 @@ struct seccomp_filter;
> struct seccomp {
> int mode;
> struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> + unsigned long flags;
> };
>
> extern int __secure_computing(int);
> @@ -51,7 +55,9 @@ static inline int seccomp_mode(struct seccomp *s)
>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
>
> -struct seccomp { };
> +struct seccomp {
> + unsigned long flags;
> +};
A bit messy ;)
I am wondering if we can simply do
static inline bool current_no_new_privs(void)
{
if (current->no_new_privs)
return true;
#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP))
return true;
#endif
return false;
return test_bit(SECCOMP_FLAG_NO_NEW_PRIVS, &p->seccomp.flags);
}
instead ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
