Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 06:21:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Today ptrace_message is easy to overlook as it not a core part of >> ptrace_stop. It has been overlooked so much that there are places >> that set ptrace_message and don't clear it, and places that never set >> it. So if you get an unlucky sequence of events the ptracer may be >> able to read a ptrace_message that does not apply to the current >> ptrace stop. >> >> Move setting of ptrace_message into ptrace_stop so that it always gets >> set before the stop, and always gets cleared after the stop. This >> prevents non-sense from being reported to userspace and makes >> ptrace_message more visible in the ptrace helper functions so that >> kernel developers can see it. >> >> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks good to me. Did you happen to run the seccomp selftests > before/after these changes? I did not. This is a pure ptrace change. Do you see a way that seccomp could be involved? Eric
