[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091208065725.GA21340@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:57:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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()
* Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * 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:
>
> If another process is going to use ptrace to inject the cmdline string
> into the victim's address space, it can also temporarily hijack a
> thread to run prctl() on its behalf...
That's exactly the point i made. There's no reason not to offer the API
i suggested as long as permissions are checked (as usual) - because
ptrace already allows this (and more).
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists