On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Current phrasing is ambiguous since it's unclear if attaching to a > children through PTRACE_TRACEME requires CAP_SYS_PTRACE. Rephrase the > sentence to make that clear. > > Signed-off-by: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Yes, this makes things more clear. Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Jon, can you take this in your tree? -Kees > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/Yama.rst | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/Yama.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/Yama.rst > index 13468ea696b7..d0a060de3973 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/Yama.rst > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/Yama.rst > @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ The sysctl settings (writable only with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE``) are: > Using ``PTRACE_TRACEME`` is unchanged. > > 2 - admin-only attach: > - only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace > - with ``PTRACE_ATTACH``, or through children calling ``PTRACE_TRACEME``. > + only processes with ``CAP_SYS_PTRACE`` may use ptrace, either with > + ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` or through children calling ``PTRACE_TRACEME``. > > 3 - no attach: > no processes may use ptrace with ``PTRACE_ATTACH`` nor via > -- > 2.19.0 > > > -- > Yves-Alexis -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
