On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Michael Tirado <mtirado...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:02 AM Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> >> Or we could have a >> seccomp() mode that adds a filter but only kicks in after execve(). >> >> --Andy > > Hey that's a pretty good idea, then we could block execve in a seccomp > launcher without post-exec cooperation, or that patch I wrote that used > an execve counter which probably should have been through prctl instead.
This has come up a few times before, actually. I had a working prototype, but it needed some more shaking-out. I do like the idea of "activate later" filters, though I'd always felt like using execve as the boundary was a bit limiting. I wonder if we could do some kind of external trigger (i.e. the fd passed to the caller) for when to activate... likely the synchronization is a horror show, though, so if execve is "good enough", I'll probably be happy with that. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
