netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: 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]

Message-ID: <20200422154356.GU5820@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:43:56 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Karstens, Nate" <Nate.Karstens@...min.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        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-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: Implement close-on-fork

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:36:09PM +0000, Karstens, Nate wrote:
> There was some skepticism about whether our practice of
> closing/reopening sockets was advisable. Regardless, it does expose what
> I believe to be something that was overlooked in the forking process
> model. We posted two solutions to the Austin Group defect tracker:

I don't think it was "overlooked" at all.  It's not safe to call system()
from a threaded app.  That's all.  It's right there in the DESCRIPTION:

   The system() function need not be thread-safe.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/system.html

> Ultimately the Austin Group felt that close-on-fork
> was the preferred approach. I think it's also worth
> pointing that out Solaris reportedly has this feature
> (https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@opengroup.org/msg05359.html).

I am perplexed that the Austin Group thought this was a good idea.