linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f

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: <20131003133939.GB28308@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:39:39 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with
 file->f_cred


* Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 08:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> wrote:
> > 
> > >  * You can't do it for /proc/*/stat otherwise you will break userspace
> > >   "ps"..., ps must access /proc/1/stat etc... so the proposed solution
> > >   will work without any side effect.
> > 
> > The thing is, returning -EINVAL is not the only way to reject access to 
> > privileged information!
> 
> > In the /proc/1/stat case a compatibility quirk can solve the problem: 
> > create a special 'dummy' process inode for invalid accesses and give 
> > it to ps, with all fields present but zero.
>
> Hmm, we already return zero for the fields that must be protected. 
> Already done.
>
> Not all fields need to be zero ?  If so, yes it could be done as you 
> propose and avoid the 'if permitted' test each time... but we don't want 
> to do it

Indeed some fields need to be available, for utilities like 'top' to work.

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/