Re: [patch 00/11] ANNOUNCE: "Syslets", generic asynchronous system call support

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 	sys_exec and other security boundaries must be synchronous 
> > only and not allow async "spill over" (consider setuid async binary 
> > patching)
> 
> He probably would need some generalization of Andrea's seccomp work. 
> Perhaps using bitmaps? For paranoia I would suggest to white list, not 
> black list calls.

what i've implemented in my tree is sys_async_call_table[] which is a 
copy of sys_call_table[] with certain entries modified (by architecture 
level code, not by kernel/async.c) to sys_ni_syscall(). It's up to the 
architecture to decide which syscalls are allowed.

but i could use a bitmap too - whatever linear construct. [ I'm not sure 
there's much connection to seccomp - seccomp uses a NULL terminated 
whitelist - while syslets would use most of the entries (and would not 
want to have the overhead of checking a blacklist). ]

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/