linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 7/8] proc: use human-readable values for hidepid

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:19:15 +0200
From:   Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 7/8] proc: use human-readable values for
 hidepid

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:05:50PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > The hidepid parameter values are becoming more and more and it becomes
> > difficult to remember what each new magic number means.
> 
> So I relooked at the code.  And I think I was misreading things.
> However I think it is a legitimate concern.
> 
> Can you please mention in your description of this change that
> switching from fsparam_u32 to fs_param_string is safe even when
> using the new mount api because fsparam_u32 and fs_param_string
> both are sent from userspace with "fsconfig(fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, ...)".

Sure.

> Or words to that effect.  Ideally you will even manually test that case
> to confirm.

I will add a selftest for this.

-- 
Rgrds, legion