[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.11-rc3-mm2] connector: Add a fork connector
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 08:07 +0100, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 18:50 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 15:55 +0100, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
> > > It's a new patch that implements a fork connector in the
> > > kernel/fork.c:do_fork() routine. The connector sends information about
> > > parent PID and child PID over a netlink interface. It allows to several
> > > user space applications to be alerted when a fork occurs in the kernel.
> > > The main drawback is that even if nobody listens, a message is send. I
> > > don't know how to avoid that. I added an option (FORK_CONNECTOR) to
> > > enable the fork connector (or disable) when compiling the kernel. To
> > > work, connector must be compiled as built-in (CONFIG_CONNECTOR=y). It
> > > has been tested on a 2.6.11-rc3-mm2 kernel with two user space
> > > applications connected.
> > >
> > > It is used by ELSA to manage group of processes in user space. In
> > > conjunction with a per-process accounting information, like BSD or CSA,
> > > ELSA provides a per-group of processes accounting.
> >
> > I think people will complain here...
> > ... [cut here] ...
> > I still think that lsm with all calls logging is the best way to
> > achieve this goal.
> I agree with you. My first implementation was with LSM but Chris Wright
> (I think it was him) notice that it's not the right framework (and it
> seems true). So I looked for another solution. I though about kobject
> but it was too "big" and finally, Greg KH spoke about connectors. It's
> small and efficient.

Your do_fork() change really looks like either audit addon(but it is
not the case) or LSM logging facility.
I think adding cn_netlink_send() in every function in security/dummy.c
and renaming it to security/cn_logger.c or something is not such a bad
Or even wait in each function until userspace replies with the decision
allow or not such call.
Although it can create a lock (need to recheck security hooks in
send/recv pathes).

> > from the other side why only fork is monitored in this way?
> The problem is the following: I have a user space daemon that manages
> group of processes. The main idea is, if a parent belongs to a group
> then its child belongs to the same group. To achieve this I need to know
> when a fork occurs and which processes are involved. I don't see how to
> do this without a hook in the do_fork() routine... Any ideas are
> welcome.

Now I begin to understand Chris Wright - LSM are designed not for
but only for initialisation path - i.e. LSM will say only if something
is allowed or not,
but not if it was performed.

So, for exactly your setup there is no any other way then to patch

> Thank you Evgeniy for all your comments about the code, it helps and I
> will modify the patch.
> Regards,
> Guillaume
Evgeniy Polyakov

Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.088 / U:5.516 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site