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  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:   Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:47:25 +0200
From:   Jürg Billeter <>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Michael Kerrisk <>,
        Filipe Brandenburger <>,
        David Wilcox <>,,

On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 18:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/03, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > 
> > My use case is to provide a way for a process to spawn a child and
> > ensure that no descendants survive when that child dies.  Avoiding
> > runaway processes is desirable in many situations.  My motivation is
> > very lightweight (nested) sandboxing (every process is potentially
> > sandboxed).
> > 
> > I.e., pid namespaces would be a pretty good fit (assuming they are
> > sufficiently lightweight) but CLONE_NEWPID
> sorry if this was already discussed, I didn't read this thread yet...
> if CLONE_NEWPID is not suitable for any reason. We already have
> PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER. Perhaps we can simply add another
> PR_SET_KILL_ALL_DESCEDANTS_ON_EXIT? we can use walk_process_tree()
> to send SIGKILL.

Yes, this is an option.  However, after the discussion in this thread I
believe it would be better to drop the CAP_SYS_ADMIN requirement for
CLONE_NEWPID (when no_new_privs is set) as this would avoid adding
another API and code path for a similar effect.  I'm interested in
possible security concerns about such a change.  Adding Andy Lutomirski
to cc.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists