[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXM7-NBnBcXbuuhDJZyUFLT7iRfcGGvaqUhDJBGkYJgcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:09:09 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] proc: instantiate only pids that we can ptrace
on 'limit_pids=1' mount option
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> wrote:
> If "limit_pids=1" mount option is set then do not instantiate pids that
> we can not ptrace. "limit_pids=1" means that procfs should only contain
> pids that the caller can ptrace.
>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 2e0f661..a663284 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -3149,6 +3149,7 @@ struct dentry *proc_pid_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry * dentry, unsign
> unsigned tgid;
> struct proc_fs_info *fs_info = proc_sb(dir->i_sb);
> struct pid_namespace *ns = fs_info->pid_ns;
> + int limit_pids = proc_fs_limit_pids(fs_info);
Shouldn't the addition of proc_fs_limit_pids() be in this patch?
Also, can we name it something self-documented?
"ptraceable_pids_only=1", perhaps? Or even pids=ptraceable (as
opposed to pids=all or maybe other choices in the future)?
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
