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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:28:23 -0700
From:   Pascal Bouchareine <>
To:     David Miller <>
Cc:,,, Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <>,
        Al Viro <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: socket: implement SO_DESCRIPTION

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:01 PM David Miller <> wrote:
> > About the pid part -
> > On top of multiple pids to scan for a given socket, there's also the
> > security provided by /proc - I'm not sure what inet_diag does for that
> > So maybe users calling it will need to scan /proc for a long time anyway...
> >
> > Or is that doable?
> I'd like to kindly ask that you do more research into how this kind of
> information is advertised to the user using modern interfaces, and what
> kinds of permissions and checks are done for those.

If we wanted to get rid of having to scan /proc from userland when
using sock_diag to identify associated processes,
I suppose scanning for pids would be the most annoying part?

I understand sock_diag uses CAP_NET_ADMIN for some sensitive bits.

I thought it would require an additional bit of logic to let an
unprivileged user access its own socket "sensitive" data.

Your message makes me think I need to read a lot more about it, so
I'll try that - but more importantly
as you mention APIs and modern interfaces, I think eBPF is going to be
of great help to try and hack
around this data without disturbing existing APIs.

Thanks for taking the time to look into it

Powered by blists - more mailing lists