On 02/19/2014 12:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:11:31AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/ptrace.h>
#include <linux/user.h>
+#include <linux/seccomp.h>
#include <linux/security.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/signal.h>
@@ -1064,6 +1065,10 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs
*regs)
{
unsigned long saved_reg;
+ if (!dir && secure_computing((int)regs->syscallno))
+ /* seccomp failures shouldn't expose any additional code. */
+ return -1;
That's only restricted to the arm64 code but could we use a more
meaningful error number?
Other architectures, including arm, also return just -1 in
syscall_trace_enter(),
but of course, we can use another value, say, -EPERM or -ENOSYS?
-Takahiro AKASHI
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
