linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: augment /proc/pid/limits to allow setting of process limits (v2).

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: <20090929134603.3935b149.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:46:03 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: augment /proc/pid/limits to allow setting of
 process limits (v2).

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:25:04 -0400
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:

> 3) modify the proc/pid/limits write routine so that it uses do_setrlimit,
> thereby giving us the previously missing security checks.

I dunno, the interface just seems goofy to me.

Yes, it's always been strange that rlimits cannot be externally
altered.  And desirable to extend that.  But doing what is really a
syscall via a profs poke when there already exists a syscall which does
the same thing seems Just Wrong.

What reason is there to do it via procfs?  Where's the benefit?

Maybe it's a plot to stop people from setting CONFIG_PROC_FS=n.
--
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/