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:   Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:13:38 -0600
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@...il.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Nagarathnam Muthusamy <nagarathnam.muthusamy@...cle.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] pid: add pidfd_open()



> On Mar 31, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 2:10 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think that we want or can make them equivalent since that would
>> mean we depend on procfs.
> 
> Sure we can.
> 
> If /proc is enabled, then you always do that dance YOU ALREADY WROTE
> THE CODE FOR to do the stupid ioctl.
> 
> And if /procfs isn't enabled, then you don't do that.
> 
> Ta-daa. Done. No stupid ioctl, and now /proc and pidfd_open() return
> the same damn thing.
> 
> And guess what? If /proc isn't enabled, then obviously pidfd_open()
> gives you the /proc-less thing, but at least there is no crazy "two
> different file descriptors for the same thing" situation, because then
> the /proc one doesn't exist.
> 

I wish we could do this, and, in a clean design, it would be a no-brainer.  But /proc has too much baggage.  Just to mention two such things, there’s “net” and “../sys”.  This crud is why we have all kinds of crazy rules that prevent programs in sandboxes from making a new mounts and mounting /proc in it.  If we make it possible to clone a new process and this access /proc without having /proc mounted, we’ll open up a big can of worms.

Maybe we could have a sanitized view of /proc and make a pidfd be a directory fd pointing at that.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists