linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes

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:	Fri,  5 Mar 2010 13:47:08 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes

> On 02/02, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds a simple flag for each process that marks it as an
> > "anchor" process for all its children and grandchildren. If a child of
> > such an anchor dies all its children will not be reparented to init, but
> > instead to this anchor, escaping this anchor process is not possible. A
> > task with this flag set hence acts is little "sub-init".
> 
> Lennart, this patch adds a noticeable linux-only feature. I see
> your point, but imho your idea needs the "strong" acks. I cc'ed
> some heavyweights, if someone dislikes your idea he can nack it
> right now.
> 
> 
> Security. This is beyond my understanding, hopefully the cc'ed
> experts can help.
> 
> Should we clear ->child_anchor flags when the "sub-init" execs? Or,
> at least, when the task changes its credentials? Probably not, but
> dunno.
> 
> The more problematic case is when the descendant of the "sub-init"
> execs the setuid application. Should we allow the reparenting to
> !/sbin/init task in this case?
> 
> Should we clear ->pdeath_signal after reparenting to sub-init ?
> 
> Do we need the new security_operations->task_reparent() method ?
> Or, perhaps we can reuse ->task_wait() if we add the "parent"
> argument?
> 
> Something else we should think about?

I think changing reparent rule is a bit risky. instead, I propse
that exporting ANCHOR flag via /proc and ps parse it.

What do you think?



--
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/