Hi Kees, Andy,
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:16:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Tycho,
>
> On 06/04, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> > > > +bool may_suspend_seccomp(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED)
> > > > + return false;
> > >
> > > Heh. OK, I won't argue with the new check too ;)
> >
> > Actually now that I think about it I agree with you, these checks
> > don't seem necessary. Even inside a user namespace, if you can ptrace
> > a process you can make it do whatever you want irrespective of
> > seccomp, as long as it has the necessary capabilities. Once the
> > seccomp checks are run after ptrace, they'll be enforced so you
> > couldn't have it call whatever you want in the first place.
>
> Good ;)
>
> > Still, perhaps I'm missing something...
>
> Kees, Andy?
Any thoughts on removing may_suspend_seccomp() all together?
I sent v3 with this still in it, but I can send v4 without it if we
are all in agreement.
Tycho
--
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
