linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] coredump: add coredump socket

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: <20250521-knirschen-kommst-2fcf19f7d280@brauner>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 17:12:52 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, stephen@...workplumber.org, 
	alexander@...alicyn.com, daan.j.demeyer@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net, 
	davem@...emloft.net, david@...dahead.eu, edumazet@...gle.com, horms@...nel.org, 
	jack@...e.cz, kuba@...nel.org, lennart@...ttering.net, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, luca.boccassi@...il.com, me@...dnzj.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	oleg@...hat.com, pabeni@...hat.com, serge@...lyn.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 
	zbyszek@...waw.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] coredump: add coredump socket

> The path lookups work very differently between COREDUMP_SOCK and
> COREDUMP_FILE - they are interpreted relative to different namespaces,
> and they run with different privileges, and they do different format
> string interpretation. I think trying to determine dynamically whether
> the path refers to a socket or to a nonexistent location at which we
> should create a file (or a preexisting file we should clobber) would
> not be practical, partly for these reasons.

Agreed.

> 
> Also, fundamentally, if we have the choice between letting userspace
> be explicit about what it wants, or trying to guess userspace's intent
> from the kernel, I think we should always go for being explicit.

Agreed.

> 
> meaning in this context, like '>'; but I don't think we should be
> changing the overall approach because of this.

Agreed.