linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Send audit/procinfo/cgroup data in socket-level control message

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: <20140113165505.GD29053@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:55:05 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Kaluza <jkaluza@...hat.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eparis@...hat.com, rgb@...hat.com,
	lizefan@...wei.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Send audit/procinfo/cgroup data in socket-level
 control message

Hello,

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:01:46AM +0100, Jan Kaluza wrote:
> this patchset against net-next (applies also to linux-next) adds 3 new types
> of "Socket"-level control message (SCM_AUDIT, SCM_PROCINFO and SCM_CGROUP).
> 
> Server-like processes in many cases need credentials and other
> metadata of the peer, to decide if the calling process is allowed to
> request a specific action, or the server just wants to log away this
> type of information for auditing tasks.
> 
> The current practice to retrieve such process metadata is to look that
> information up in procfs with the $PID received over SCM_CREDENTIALS.
> This is sufficient for long-running tasks, but introduces a race which
> cannot be worked around for short-living processes; the calling
> process and all the information in /proc/$PID/ is gone before the
> receiver of the socket message can look it up.
> 
> Changes introduced in this patchset can also increase performance
> of such server-like processes, because current way of opening and
> parsing /proc/$PID/* files is much more expensive than receiving these
> metadata using SCM.

Closing the race sounds like a good idea to me.  What do net people
think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/