On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:40:02PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Some embedded systems can do without the prctl syscall, saving some > > space. > > > > This also avoids regular increases in tinyconfig size as people add more > > non-optional functionality to prctl (observed via the 0-day kernel > > infrastructure). > > > > bloat-o-meter results: > > > > add/remove: 0/3 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-2143 (-2143) > > function old new delta > > offsets 23 12 -11 > > prctl_set_auxv 97 - -97 > > sys_prctl 794 - -794 > > prctl_set_mm 1241 - -1241 > > Total: Before=1902583, After=1900440, chg -0.11% > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm absolutely a fan of doing this, but I wonder how this interacts > with the LSMs that define prctl hooks, etc. I wouldn't expect a system > that didn't want prctl to want an LSM, but maybe the LSMs all need to > depend on CONFIG_PRCTL now? I did think about that (as well as SECCOMP), but I did confirm that the kernel builds fine with allyesconfig minus CONFIG_PRCTL. An LSM that wants to restrict access to some prctls should be fine with no process having any access to prctl. :) Beyond that, anything wanting configuration via LSM (such as SECCOMP) still exists and functions, even if you can't access it from outside the kernel. -- 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
