seccomp_unotify.2: EXAMPLE: ensure path read() by the supervisor is null-terminated
From a conversation with Jann Horn:
>> We should probably make sure here that the value we read is actually
>> NUL-terminated?
>
> So, I was curious about that point also. But, (why) are we not
> guaranteed that it will be NUL-terminated?
Because it's random memory filled by another process, which we don't
necessarily trust. While seccomp notifiers aren't usable for applying
*extra* security restrictions, the supervisor will still often be more
privileged than the supervised process.
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
1 file changed
