From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 17:16:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuevHoEAZdnQmuGiwpLcfxSBq3M8T0ZeQFG+Do2aCFcZfQQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKOZueve_r5h9_B2YV5RzJYjTf-yS5uZfAbz+Ftqy5jFSk6Xdw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
>> Sure, I'd propose that ptrace_may_access() is what we should use for
>> operation permission checks.
>
> The tricky part is that ptrace_may_access takes a struct task. We want
> logic that's *like* ptrace_may_access, but that works posthumously.
> It's especially tricky because there's an LSM hook that lets
> __ptrace_may_access do arbitrary things. And we can't just run that
> hook upon process death, since *after* a process dies, a process
> holding an exithand FD (or whatever we call it) may pass that FD to
> another process, and *that* process can read(2) from it.
>
> Another option is doing the exithand access check at open time. I
> think that's probably fine, and it would make things a lot simpler.
> But if we use this option, we should understand what we're doing, and
> get some security-conscious people to think through the implications.
A ptrace check is also probably too strict. Yama's ptrace_scope
feature will block ptrace between unrelated processes within a single
user context, but applying this restriction to exit code monitoring
seems too severe to me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-19 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-18 11:17 [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors Christian Brauner
2018-11-18 13:59 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 15:38 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 15:53 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 16:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 16:29 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 17:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 17:17 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 17:43 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-11-18 17:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 17:56 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 16:33 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-11-18 16:48 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 17:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 17:24 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 17:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 17:51 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 18:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 18:43 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 19:05 ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-11-18 19:44 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 20:15 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-18 20:21 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 20:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 20:32 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-19 1:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 20:43 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-18 20:54 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 21:23 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-18 21:30 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-19 0:31 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-19 0:40 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-19 0:09 ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-11-19 0:53 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-19 1:16 ` Daniel Colascione [this message]
2018-11-19 16:13 ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-11-19 16:26 ` [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors (Larger pids) Eric W. Biederman
2018-11-19 16:27 ` [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors Daniel Colascione
2018-11-19 20:21 ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-11-19 2:47 ` Al Viro
2018-11-19 3:01 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 17:41 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-18 17:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 18:07 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 18:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-18 18:31 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 19:24 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-19 0:08 ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-11-19 1:14 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-18 16:03 ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-19 10:56 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-19 14:15 ` David Laight
2018-11-19 15:49 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKOZuevHoEAZdnQmuGiwpLcfxSBq3M8T0ZeQFG+Do2aCFcZfQQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dancol@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jengelh@inai.de \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).