linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] fs: Support setting a minimum fd for "lowest available fd" allocation

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]

Message-ID: <20200423011253.GA18957@altlinux.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:12:53 +0300
From:   "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] fs: Support setting a minimum fd for "lowest
 available fd" allocation

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:19:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Some applications want to prevent the usual "lowest available fd"
> allocation from allocating certain file descriptors. For instance, they
> may want to prevent allocation of a closed fd 0, 1, or 2 other than via
> dup2/dup3, or reserve some low file descriptors for other purposes.
> 
> Add a prctl to increase the minimum fd and return the previous minimum.
> 
> System calls that allocate a specific file descriptor, such as
> dup2/dup3, ignore this minimum.
> 
> exec resets the minimum fd, to prevent one program from interfering with
> another program's expectations about fd allocation.

Please make this aspect properly documented in "Effect on process
attributes" section of execve(2) manual page.

[...]
> +unsigned int increase_min_fd(unsigned int num)
> +{
> +	struct files_struct *files = current->files;
> +	unsigned int old_min_fd;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> +	old_min_fd = files->min_fd;
> +	files->min_fd += num;
> +	spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> +	return old_min_fd;
> +}

If it's "increase", there should be an overflow check.
Otherwise it's "assign" rather than "increase".


-- 
ldv