[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:0.041 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site