[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] procfs: add privacy options
    Eric W. Biederman schrieb:
    > I don't really like filesystem magic options as kernel boot time options.
    > Mount time or runtime options are probably more interesting.
    > How is it expected that users will use this?

    I don't expect admins to switch "privacy" on and off very often. Once
    would be enough, I hope.

    Mount options would be easier to use, I agree, but I doubt the added
    complexity is worth it. Kernel options for procfs are not _that_
    magical because the kernel mounts it internally, so it's a kernel part,
    not a real filesystem ;-)

    One question I couldn't find a good answer for regarding remount
    options: what to do with processes that have cd'd into a /proc/<pid> dir
    belonging to another user when the privacy option is being turned on?
    Letting them keep their access is counter-intuitive and taking it away
    would need quite invasive changes compared to my patch, I think.

    > A lot of the privacy you are talking about is provided by the may_ptrace
    > checks in the more sensitive parts of proc so we may want to extend
    > that.

    You mean using ptrace_may_attach() and/or MAY_PTRACE() for determining
    access to all (or at least more) files in /proc/<pid> instead of my
    proposed "chmod 500"? What are the advantages?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-25 00:23    [W:0.019 / U:10.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site