linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE

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: <20091208155202.B5B7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue,  8 Dec 2009 15:53:21 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Timo Sirainen <tss@....fi>,
	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

> > 
> > * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > The feature looks useful, but the choice of a prctl as an API is strange 
> > > > - it limits us to the current task only - while the ability to set 
> > > > arguments for another task looks a more generic (and potentially more 
> > > > useful) solution.
> > > 
> > > No. It's impossible.
> > > /proc/{pid}/cmdline read user process's memory. iow, this prctl() don't
> > > receive string, it receive virtual address itself. [...]
> > 
> > it's not 'impossible' at all, you yourself mention ptrace:
> 
> Ah yes, 'impossible' was wrong word. but it doesn't works intentionally.
> 
> 1. setproctitle() unaware application continue to see argv[0] directly.
>   it makes some inconsistent behavior. 
> 2. proc title (i.e. string) injection need to map new page as process title area.
>    implicit mapping increasing makes new trouble
>    - mihgt cause to exceed max_map_count awhile after.
>    - might cause leak proc title area (who know when it should be freed?)
> 
> I think reasonable way is 1. send signal (or use another inter process
> communication way) to target process 2. target process change own proc title
> themself.
> 
> Plus, I haven't seen the use-case of changin another task. iow I doubt
> it's worth to change lots code.

if your mention is strongly, can you please explain your expected use case?


--
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/