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: <20091208065818.GB21340@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:58:18 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	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:

> > > 
> > > * 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?

I have no strong opinion - i just raised the possibility. We try to 
avoid special-purpose APIs for new syscalls - we try to design them in a 
generic way.

	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/