linux-kernel - Re: [oss-security] [patch] proc.5: tell how to parse /proc/*/stat correctly

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: <20221228172517.l7h3m7wjfpxr3dzw@mutt-hbsd>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:25:17 -0500
From:   Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@...denedbsd.org>
To:     oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc:     Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [oss-security] [patch] proc.5: tell how to parse /proc/*/stat
 correctly

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:47:25AM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:24:58AM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 04:44:49PM -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > > Dominique Martinet writes:
> > > 
> > > > But, really, I just don't see how this can practically be said to be parsable...
> > > 
> > > In its current form it never will be.  The solution is to place
> > > this variable-length field last.  Then you can "cut -d ' ' -f 51-"
> > > to get the command+args part (assuming I counted all those fields
> > > correctly ...)
> > > 
> > > Of course, this breaks backwards compatability.
> > 
> > It would also break forwards compatibility in the case new fields
> > needed to be added.
> > 
> > The only solution would be a libxo-style feature wherein a
> > machine-parseable format is exposed by virtue of a file extension.
> > 
> > Examples:
> > 
> > 1. /proc/pid/stats.json
> > 2. /proc/pid/stats.xml
> > 3. /proc/pid/stats.yaml_shouldnt_be_a_thing
> 
> A binary format would be even better.  No risk of ambiguity.

I think the argument I'm trying to make is to be flexible in
implementation, allowing for future needs and wants--that is "future
proofing".

-- 
Shawn Webb
Cofounder / Security Engineer
HardenedBSD

https://git.hardenedbsd.org/hardenedbsd/pubkeys/-/raw/master/Shawn_Webb/03A4CBEBB82EA5A67D9F3853FF2E67A277F8E1FA.pub.asc

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)