Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] seccomp: move no_new_privs into seccomp

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> -struct seccomp { };
> >> +struct seccomp {
> >> +     unsigned long flags;
> >> +};
> >
> > A bit messy ;)
> >
> > I am wondering if we can simply do
> >
> >         static inline bool current_no_new_privs(void)
> >         {
> >                 if (current->no_new_privs)
> >                         return true;
> >
> >         #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> >                 if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP))
> >                         return true;
> >         #endif
>
> Nope -- privileged users can enable seccomp w/o nnp.

Indeed, I am stupid.

Still it would be nice to cleanup this somehow. The new member is only
used as a previous ->no_new_privs, just it is long to allow the concurent
set/get. Logically it doesn't even belong to seccomp{}.

Oleg.

--
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/