linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] pid: add pidfd

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:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:04:52 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 08:13:38PM -0600, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > 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.

We can also just create something like an internal bind-mount without a
parent, i.e. similar to

open_tree(<internal-procfs-mount>, "<pid>", OPEN_TREE_CLONE);

on a clone(CLONE_PIDFD);

that would block any openat(fd, "..");