On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). Ah-ha, perfect. Ran it now and yup, these all pass. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
