On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:45:49PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Tycho Andersen
> <tycho.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> As in, just open-code the check? That would be fine by me.
Sorry, I meant getting rid of any checks entirely. Using my argument
above I've managed to convince myself they don't add any value. You
guys know a lot more about this than I do, though.
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
