On 06/24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> -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.
Indeed, I am stupid.
Still it would be nice to cleanup this somehow. The new member is only
used as a previous ->no_new_privs, just it is long to allow the concurent
set/get. Logically it doesn't even belong to seccomp{}.
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
