linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: add SecBits field to /proc/<PID>/status

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: <CALQRfL6ij=Hr44W_0Kwq+buWuinBB-JJAQtGi80CZkLT0D=Q7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 20:29:47 -0800
From:   "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: add SecBits field to /proc/<PID>/status

James,

I'm not sure how to address this concern. Is there a specific issue
like the characters used in the newly added line are problematic in
some way? (I think '.' is the only character introduced by this change
that I don't currently find in, say, /proc/1/status, but if I create a
file called foo.bin and execute it, its status file contains that
character.)

In a more general sense, how might this change be problematic in a way
that, say fe719888344cc (from 2020-12-15) which added the line
"SpeculationIndirectBranch:\t..."  was not of similar concern? I've
tried to be consistent with the formatting etc. Am I missing
something?

Thanks

Andrew

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:45 AM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
>
> > Securebits strongly influence the way Capabilities work for a process,
> > make them visible in the proc status files.
>
> My concern is that this might break some existing userspace code which
> parses the status file.
>
>
> --
> James Morris
> <jmorris@...ei.org>
>