All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: "wad@chromium.org" <wad@chromium.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"dsaxena@linaro.org" <dsaxena@linaro.org>,
	"arndb@arndb.de" <arndb@arndb.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:24:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140306152458.GG5202@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5317DEC6.4060103@linaro.org>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:34:46AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 02:20 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:20:24AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > I'm slightly surprised that we do the secure computing check first. Doesn't
> > this allow a debugger to change the syscall to something else after we've
> > decided that it's ok?
> 
> To be honest, I just followed other architectures' implementation.
> Can you elaborate any use case that you have in your mind?

My initial thought was that we should do the secure_computing check *after*
the debugger has finished messing around with the registers. However, I
suppose you'd have had to enable ptrace in your seccompd filter for that
scenario to occur, so there's probably not an issue here after all.

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:24:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140306152458.GG5202@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5317DEC6.4060103@linaro.org>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:34:46AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 02:20 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:20:24AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > I'm slightly surprised that we do the secure computing check first. Doesn't
> > this allow a debugger to change the syscall to something else after we've
> > decided that it's ok?
> 
> To be honest, I just followed other architectures' implementation.
> Can you elaborate any use case that you have in your mind?

My initial thought was that we should do the secure_computing check *after*
the debugger has finished messing around with the registers. However, I
suppose you'd have had to enable ptrace in your seccompd filter for that
scenario to occur, so there's probably not an issue here after all.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-06 15:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-07 10:11 [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 10:11 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] " AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 10:11   ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 14:44   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-07 14:44     ` Arnd Bergmann
     [not found]     ` <CAB5YjtB6XnXRd90AUw=rJCOBKyfcngTQd3Kxft33XLCK+K=Vuw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-02-12 11:05       ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-12 11:05         ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-12 11:17         ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-12 11:17           ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-02-18 15:38   ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-18 15:38     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-19 11:39     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-19 11:39       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-19 16:41       ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-19 16:41         ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-20  0:34         ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-20  0:34           ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: is_compat_task is defined both in asm/compat.h and linux/compat.h AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-07 10:11   ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-17 19:32   ` Will Deacon
2014-02-17 19:32     ` Will Deacon
2014-02-19 11:16     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-19 11:16       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20   ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] asm-generic: Add generic seccomp.h for secure computing mode 1 AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20   ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-28 17:20     ` Will Deacon
2014-02-28 17:20       ` Will Deacon
2014-03-06  2:34       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-06  2:34         ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-06 15:24         ` Will Deacon [this message]
2014-03-06 15:24           ` Will Deacon
2014-02-25  9:20   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: is_compat_task is defined both in asm/compat.h and linux/compat.h AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-25  9:20     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-02-28 16:58     ` Will Deacon
2014-02-28 16:58       ` Will Deacon
2014-03-13 10:17   ` [PATCH v3 0/3] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17     ` [PATCH v3 1/3] asm-generic: Add generic seccomp.h for secure computing mode 1 AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-14 17:08       ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-14 17:08         ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-13 10:17     ` [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17     ` [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: is_compat_task is defined both in asm/compat.h and linux/compat.h AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-13 10:17       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50     ` [PATCH_v4 0/2] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50       ` [PATCH_v4 1/2] asm-generic: Add generic seccomp.h for secure computing mode 1 AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50         ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50       ` [PATCH_v4 2/2] arm64: Add seccomp support AKASHI Takahiro
2014-03-15  5:50         ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-06-25 14:53       ` [PATCH_v4 0/2] " Mark Salter
2014-06-25 14:53         ` Mark Salter
2014-06-26  0:57         ` AKASHI Takahiro
2014-06-26  0:57           ` AKASHI Takahiro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140306152458.GG5202@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=arndb@arndb.de \
    --cc=dsaxena@linaro.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.