linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez05OtBi_yX+071TrrfK3zKOn9h1kFyPr5rttiqQAZ0sEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 16:03:27 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:08 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:45:06AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:04 AM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > This adds the pidfd_open() syscall. It allows a caller to retrieve pollable
> > > pidfds for a process which did not get created via CLONE_PIDFD, i.e. for a
> > > process that is created via traditional fork()/clone() calls that is only
> > > referenced by a PID:
[...]
> > > +/**
> > > + * pidfd_open() - Open new pid file descriptor.
> > > + *
> > > + * @pid:   pid for which to retrieve a pidfd
> > > + * @flags: flags to pass
> > > + *
> > > + * This creates a new pid file descriptor with the O_CLOEXEC flag set for
> > > + * the process identified by @pid. Currently, the process identified by
> > > + * @pid must be a thread-group leader. This restriction currently exists
> > > + * for all aspects of pidfds including pidfd creation (CLONE_PIDFD cannot
> > > + * be used with CLONE_THREAD) and pidfd polling (only supports thread group
> > > + * leaders).
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: On success, a cloexec pidfd is returned.
> > > + *         On error, a negative errno number will be returned.
> > > + */
> > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> > > +{
[...]
> > > +       if (pid <= 0)
> > > +               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > WDYT of defining pid == 0 to mean "open myself"?
>
> I'm torn. It be a nice shortcut of course but pid being 0 is usually an
> indicator for child processes. So unless the getpid() before
> pidfd_open() is an issue I'd say let's leave it as is. If you really
> want the shortcut might -1 be better?

Joining the bikeshed painting club: Please don't allow either 0 or -1
as shortcut for "self". James Forshaw found an Android security bug a
while back (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=727)
that passed a PID to getpidcon(), except that the PID was 0
(placeholder for oneway binder transactions), and then the service
thought it was talking to itself. You could pick some other number and
provide a #define for that, but I think pidfd_open(getpid(), ...)
makes more sense.