[PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: Add seccomp support
takahiro.akashi at linaro.org
Mon Aug 11 23:57:25 PDT 2014
On 08/11/2014 06:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:35:42AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On 08/06/2014 12:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
>>> <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> I found a bug in my current patch (v5). When 32-bit tracer skips a system call,
>>>> we should not update syscallno from x8 since syscallno is re-written directly
>>>> via ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).
>>> Ah, yes. Will aarch64 have a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL option, or is this
>>> strictly a 32-bit vs 64-bit issue?
>> As discussed in a few weeks ago, aarch64 won't support PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.
> Well, I don't think anything was set in stone. If you have a compelling
> reason why adding the new request gives you something over setting w8
> directly, then we can extend ptrace.
Yeah, I think I may have to change my mind. Looking into __secure_computing(),
I found the code below:
> case SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER:
> case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE:
> if (syscall_get_nr(current, regs) < 0)
> goto skip;
This implies that we should modify syscallno *before* __secure_computing() returns.
I assumed, in my next version, we could skip a system call by overwriting syscallno
with x8 in syscall_trace_enter() after __secure_computing() returns 0, and it actually
But we'd better implement PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL to comply with what __secure_computing()
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
More information about the linux-arm-kernel