On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This series is the result of Fabricio, Tyler, Will and I going around a > few times on possible solutions for finding a way to enhance RET_KILL > to kill the process group. There's a lot of ways this could be done, > but I wanted something that felt cleanest. My sense of what constitutes > "clean" has shifted a few times, and after continually running into > weird corner cases, I decided to make changes to the seccomp action mask, > which shouldn't be too invasive to userspace as it turns out. Everything > else becomes much easier, especially after being able to use Tyler's > new SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL operation. > > This renames SECCOMP_RET_KILL to SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD and adds > SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS. I just took a very quick look and I'm not seeing anything that would cause any backwards compatibility issues for libseccomp. You could try running the libseccomp tests against a patched kernel to make sure; the README has all the info you need (pay special attention to the "live" tests, although those are pretty meager at the moment). -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
