netdev - Re: Implement close-on-fork

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:18:15 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Nate Karstens <nate.karstens@...min.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Implement close-on-fork

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:01:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:15:44AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote:
> > Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been
> > published to https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork.
> > 
> > close-on-fork addresses race conditions in system(), which
> > (depending on the implementation) is non-atomic in that it
> > first calls a fork() and then an exec().
> > 
> > This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards
> > Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX
> > standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker).
> 
> What exactly the reasons are and why would we want to implement that?
> 
> Pardon me, but going by the previous history, "The Austin Group Says It's
> Good" is more of a source of concern regarding the merits, general sanity
> and, most of all, good taste of a proposal.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's automatically bad, but you'll have to go much
> deeper into the rationale of that change before your proposal is taken
> seriously.

https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@opengroup.org/msg05324.html
might be useful