linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] cgroup: uid-based rules to add processes efficiently in the right cgroup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a2776ec50808190812g15ecd48dw23db4337016f38a2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:12:04 +0200
From:	righi.andrea@...il.com
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux kernel mailing list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Dhaval Giani" <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kazunaga Ikeno" <k-ikeno@...jp.nec.com>,
	"Morton Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Thomas Graf" <tgraf@...hat.com>,
	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] cgroup: uid-based rules to add processes efficiently in the right cgroup

On 8/18/08, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> [ I wrote this patch for a "special purpose" environment, where a lot of
>> short-lived processes belonging to different users are spawned by
>> different daemons,
>
> What kinds of daemons are these? Is it not possible to add some
> libcgroup calls to these daemons?

unfortunately I don't have too much details for now, so I was just
looking for the most generic solution. The PAM lib approach seems
reasonable for each daemon that represents an entry point to the
system, and, to a large degree, I like the userspace solution (e.g.
the libcgroup as reported by Vivek). It seems to be the right way to
handle all the possible/complex rule an admin would like to define.

>
> I'm reluctant to add features like this to the kernel side of cgroups

agree

> due to their "magical" nature - any task that does a setuid() now
> risks being swept off into a different cgroup.

If the admin configures so, moving tasks that do setuid() in different
cgroups should be an expected behaviour, isn't it?

>
> Having the cgroup attachment done explicitly e.g. by a PAM library at
> login time is much less likely to cause unexpected behaviour.
>
> Maybe if we had a way to control which tasks the magical setuid
> switching occurs for, it might be more acceptable. (Perhaps base it on
> the cgroup of the task that's doing the setuid as well?

do you mean create a cgroup subsystem to handle different per-cgroup
setuid() switching behaviours?

>
> Other thoughts:
>
> - what about other uids (euid, fsuid)?
>
> - what about multiple hierarchies?
>
> - if the attach fails, userspace gets no notification.

good points.

For the last one we could just return an error code from cgroup_fork()
and  goto bad_fork_cleanup_cgroup (in this way the fork/exec would
fail anyway).

>
> Paul
>

Thanks,
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/