On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
Nope -- privileged users can enable seccomp w/o nnp.
--Andy
--
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
