linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:51:45 -0700
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for
	checkpoint	restart

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:11 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>> In our implementation, we simply refused to checkpoint setid
> >> programs.
> >>
> >> True. And this works very well for HPC applications.
> >>
> >> However, it doesn't work so well for server applications, for
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> Also, you could use file system snapshotting to ensure that the file
> >> system view does not change, and still face the same issue.
> >>
> >> So I'm perfectly ok with deferring this discussion to a later time :)
> > 
> > Oren, is this a good place to stick a process_deny_checkpoint()?  Both
> > so we refuse to checkpoint, and document this as something that has to
> > be addressed later?
> 
> why refuse to checkpoint ?

	If most setuid programs hold privileged resources for extended periods
of time after dropping privileges then it seems like a good idea to
refuse to checkpoint. Restart of those programs would be quite
unreliable unless/until we find a nice solution.

> if I'm root, and I want to checkpoint, and later restart, my sshd server
> (assuming we support listening sockets) - then why not ?
> we can just let it be, and have the restart fail (if it isn't root that
> does the restart); perhaps add something like warn_checkpoint() (similar
> to deny, but only warns) ?

	How will folks not specializing in checkpoint/restart know when to use
this as opposed to deny?

	Instead, how about a flag to sys_checkpoint() -- DO_RISKY_CHECKPOINT --
which checkpoints despite !may_checkpoint?

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

--
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/