Hi Kees, On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:34 PM Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote: > > Alternatively, maybe this syscall implementation should be reverted? > > Honestly, that seems the best choice. I don't think any thought was > given to how it would interact with syscall interposers (including > ptrace, strict mode seccomp, etc). I don't know if you noticed Andrii's and others' comments on this [1]. Given that: - this issue requires immediate remediation - there seems to be pushback for reverting the syscall implementation - filtering uretprobe is not within the capabilities of seccomp without this syscall (so reverting the syscall is equivalent to just passing it through seccomp) is it possible to consider applying this current fix, with the possibility of extending seccomp in the future to support filtering uretprobe if deemed necessary (for example by allowing userspace to define a stricter policy)? Thanks, Eyal. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250121182939.33d05470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#me2676c378eff2d6a33f3054fed4a5f3afa64e65b
