On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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{}.
We could add an unsigned long atomic flags field to task_struct.
Grr. Why isn't there an unsigned *int* atomic bitmask type? Even u64
would be better. unsigned long is useless.
>
> Oleg.
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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
