[PATCH v10 0/11] seccomp: add thread sync ability

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:53 PM, James Morris <james.l.morris at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 07/15/2014 04:59 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Is this series something you would carry in the security-next tree?
>> That has traditionally been where seccomp features have landed in the
>> past.
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/10, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This adds the ability for threads to request seccomp filter
>>>>> synchronization across their thread group (at filter attach time).
>>>>> For example, for Chrome to make sure graphic driver threads are fully
>>>>> confined after seccomp filters have been attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> To support this, locking on seccomp changes via thread-group-shared
>>>>> sighand lock is introduced, along with refactoring of no_new_privs.
>>>>> Races
>>>>> with thread creation are handled via delayed duplication of the seccomp
>>>>> task struct field and cred_guard_mutex.
>>>>>
>>>>> This includes a new syscall (instead of adding a new prctl option),
>>>>> as suggested by Andy Lutomirski and Michael Kerrisk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not not see any problems in this version,
>>>
>>>
>>> Awesome! Thank you for all the reviews. :) If Andy and Michael are
>>> happy with this too, I think this is in good shape. \o/
>>>
>>> -Kees
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kees Cook
>>> Chrome OS Security
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yep, certainly.
>

Any ETA?  I'm currently blocking on having stable commit hashes for these.

If you're planning on pulling from Kees' tree instead of importing the
patches, I can work with that, too.

Thanks,
Andy