Re: [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors

From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: 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>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: allow killing processes via file descriptors
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 08:29:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuetuuxW+yFnyaqS5kW6gkVMstLa8D-7SgYtrLBUQB+sgDg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVLP_mudJTW6EQpRr5GZ7kfuGci+QCT1uPrOVDTWcod-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 7:53 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 7:38 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > I fully agree that a more comprehensive, less expensive API for
>> > managing processes would be nice.  But I also think that this patch
>> > (using the directory fd and ioctl) is better from a security
>> > perspective than using a new file in /proc.
>>
>> That's an assertion, not an argument. And I'm not opposed to an
>> operation on the directory FD, now that it's clear Linus has banned
>> "write(2)-as-a-command" APIs. I just insist that we implement the API
>> with a system call instead of a less-reliable ioctl due to the
>> inherent namespace collision issues in ioctl command names.
>
> Linus banned it because of bugs iike the ones in the patch.

Maybe: he didn't provide a reason. What's your point?

>> > I have an old patch to make proc directory fds pollable:
>> >
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/345098/
>> >
>> > That patch plus the one in this thread might make a nice addition to
>> > the kernel even if we expect something much better to come along
>> > later.
>>
>> I've always commented on that patch. You never addressed my technical
>> objections. Why are you bringing up this patch again as if that
>> discussion had never happened? To review, that patch has various race
>> conditions
>
> I don't think I ever saw that review.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAKOZuevXXqwJepmLNUtrU=f8jtdgdKAzUAnAA2+KVcWoMxMyFg@mail.gmail.com/

>> and even if it were technically correct, it'd be an abuse
>> of directory objects (in what other circumstance do we poll
>> directories?) and not logically generalizable to a model in which we
>> expose process exit status via the exit-monitoring API.
>
> I agree it's weird.  It might be better to have /proc/PID/exit_status
> and make *that* pollable.

That's exactly what my patch provides. I feel like we're rehashing the
previous discussion.