linux-kernel - Re: procfs: boot- and runtime configurable access mode for /proc/<pid> dirs

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: <20110324182230.GB5187@p183.telecom.by>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:22:30 +0200
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Reichelt <debian@...htgeist.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: procfs: boot- and runtime configurable access mode for
 /proc/<pid> dirs

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:41:58AM +0100, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> > Keeping u/g/o inside kernel is horrible.
> 
> Why exactly? Since it's only a char and not char[] I don't see the
> disadvantage over int or a define or whatever. Of course I could always
> change that if that's a de-facto standard I just didn't know about.

Keep mode_t inside kernel, this will get rid of many ifdefs.
 
> > What is the usecase? Content of /proc/* is identical.
> 
> Use-case is to isolate process information from other users' or groups'
> eyes, e.g. with 550 the output of ps aux only lists processes of the
> groups your user is a member of.

This is doable with some ps(1) switch, I'm sure.

The content of /proc/$PID directory is not a secret.
--
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/