lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes
Date
> On 02/02, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds a simple flag for each process that marks it as an
> > "anchor" process for all its children and grandchildren. If a child of
> > such an anchor dies all its children will not be reparented to init, but
> > instead to this anchor, escaping this anchor process is not possible. A
> > task with this flag set hence acts is little "sub-init".
>
> Lennart, this patch adds a noticeable linux-only feature. I see
> your point, but imho your idea needs the "strong" acks. I cc'ed
> some heavyweights, if someone dislikes your idea he can nack it
> right now.
>
>
> Security. This is beyond my understanding, hopefully the cc'ed
> experts can help.
>
> Should we clear ->child_anchor flags when the "sub-init" execs? Or,
> at least, when the task changes its credentials? Probably not, but
> dunno.
>
> The more problematic case is when the descendant of the "sub-init"
> execs the setuid application. Should we allow the reparenting to
> !/sbin/init task in this case?
>
> Should we clear ->pdeath_signal after reparenting to sub-init ?
>
> Do we need the new security_operations->task_reparent() method ?
> Or, perhaps we can reuse ->task_wait() if we add the "parent"
> argument?
>
> Something else we should think about?

I think changing reparent rule is a bit risky. instead, I propse
that exporting ANCHOR flag via /proc and ps parse it.

What do you think?





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-05 05:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site