Re: seccomp for 2.6.11-rc1-bk8

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > Well, seccomp is also getting very little testing, when ptrace gets a
> > lot of testing; I know that seccomp is simple, but I believe testing
> > coverage still make ptrace better choice.
> 
> It's not testing that makes code more secure. Testing verifys the code
> works in production, but testing almost never helps to find security
> issues, and often not even hidden subtle race conditions. Check how many
> security bugs have been found with testing.  Just go to bugtraq count
> them. I simply cannot relay on testing for the security part. I will
> relay on testing for everything else but not for this.

Well, then you can help auditing ptrace()... It is probably also true
that more people audited ptrace() than seccomp :-).
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/