Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call

[James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 24 May 2012, Will Drewry wrote:

> As is, the biggest benefit of this change is just setting consistent
> expectations in what the ptrace/seccomp interactions should be.  The
> current ability for ptrace to "bypass" secure computing (by remapping
> allowed system calls) is not necessarily a problem, but it is not
> necessarily intuitive behavior.

Indeed -- while the purpose of seccomp is to reduce the attack surface of 
the syscall interface, if a user allows ptrace, attackers will definitely 
see that as an attack vector, if it allows them to increase that attack 
surface.

It at least needs to be well-documented.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html