Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:22:55 +0300 From: Samy Al Bahra <samy@kerneled.com> To: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Cc: earthman@inbox.ru Subject: Re: On-line judgment kernel module Message-ID: <20031017132255.197cd7b8.samy@kerneled.com> In-Reply-To: <16271.7039.150262.159805@canoe.dclg.ca> References: <1197083983.20031009074645@inbox.ru> <16271.7039.150262.159805@canoe.dclg.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:28:15 -0400 David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> wrote: > As you conjecture, a syscall-less or syscall-restricted environment > *should* be safe ... if your syscall changes are bulletproof *_and_* > the rest of the runtime environment is bulletproof. Good system call policies are a WONDERFUL feature at a system administrator's hands. There is no such thing as a syscall-less environment but only a restricted (either at the same layer as the system calls or above in terms of code path). > Isn't a syscall required to finish off exit()? Yes, consult kern_exit.c How is this related to the discussion though? The fact is, most people would not even want to TOUCH sys_exit and friends since there are no real security advantages there. In otherwords, an exit system call remains completely the same. -- +-----------------------------------+ | Samy Al Bahra | samy@kerneled.com | |-----------------------------------| | B3A7 F5BE B2AE 67B1 AC4B | | 0983 956D 1F4A AA54 47CB | |-----------------------------------| | http://www.kerneled.com | +-----------------------------------+
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031017132255.197cd7b8.samy>