[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5397376B.3000300@skarnet.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:50:51 +0100
From: Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl 1.0.x branch
On 10/06/2014 17:03, Rich Felker wrote:
> FYI you can emulate the usefulness of suid, without the danger, by
> having a daemon on a unix socket that you connect to which provides
> the functionality. This is a vastly superior design because there is
> exactly one input channel to the code running with elevated privileges
> (the socket) as opposed to unboundedly many (environment, open fds,
> resource limits, working directory, priority, signal mask and
> dispositions, cpu affinity, ... and whatever else the kernel folks add
> in the future).
And now there are even programs designed to help you do exactly that:
http://skarnet.org/software/s6-networking/s6-sudo.html
(Shameless plug of the day: achieved)
However, despite being a good solution for noninteractive programs, the
unix socket mechanism isn't perfect. There are a lot of things it cannot
transmit without significant trouble - in particular terminals and
everything job-control-related, and signals, etc. I've done quite a bit
of thinking while writing s6-sudo, and my conclusion was that it's a
daunting task to get everything working properly with programs that
need a terminal; it would require ugly wrappers à la ptyget, and more.
I'm not convinced it's even worth trying, as opposed to tackling the
existing terminal-using privilege-granting programs and kicking the
suid out of them.
--
Laurent
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.
