linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 12:43:36 +0200
From:   Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:08 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:01 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > I really would like to avoid that because it will just mean that someone
> > > else will abuse that function and then make an argument why we should
> > > export the other function.
> > >
> > > I think it would be ok if we required that unix support is built in
> > > because it's not unprecedented either and we're not breaking anything.
> > > Bpf has the same requirement:
> > >
> > >   #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> > >   struct bpf_unix_iter_state {
> > >           struct seq_net_private p;
> > >           unsigned int cur_sk;
> > >           unsigned int end_sk;
> > >           unsigned int max_sk;
> > >           struct sock **batch;
> > >           bool st_bucket_done;
> > >   };
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >   #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> > >   DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(unix, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta,
> > >                        struct unix_sock *unix_sk, uid_t uid)
>
> Don't think we should bring BPF into arguments about uAPI consistency :S
>
> > Some data points: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Archlinux all
> > ship with CONFIG_UNIX=y, so a missing SCM_PIDFD in unlikely to have a
> > widespread impact, and if it does, it might encourage someone to
> > review their kconfig.
>
> IDK how you can argue that everyone sets UNIX to =y so hiding SCM_PIDFD
> is fine and at the same time not be okay with making UNIX a bool :S
>
> > As mentioned on the v5 thread, we are waiting for this API to get the
> > userspace side sorted (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkit), so I'd be
> > really grateful if we could start with the simplest and most
> > conservative approach (which seems to be the current one in v6 to me),
> > and then eventually later decide whether to export more functions, or
> > to deprecate CONFIG_UNIX=m, or something else entirely, as that
> > doesn't really affect the shape of the UAPI, just the details of its
> > availability. Thank you.
>
> Just throw in a patch to make UNIX a bool and stop arguing then.

Dear Jakub,

Thanks for your attention to these patch series!

I'm ready to prepare/send a patch to make CONFIG_UNIX bool.

I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX  to be a
boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)

Kind regards,
Alex