[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] Make /proc/<pid> chmod'able
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 10:42 +0100, Rene Scharfe wrote:
> > Albert Cahalan wrote:

> > Why do you think users should not be allowed to chmod their processes'
> > /proc directories? Isn't it similar to being able to chmod their home
> > directories? They own both objects, after all (both conceptually and as
> > attributed in the filesystem).
> This is, to use your own word, "cloaking". This would let
> a bad user or even an unauthorized user hide from the admin.

NACK, the admin (and with the new inherited capabilities all users with
cap_???_override) can see all processes. Only users who don't need to know
won't see the other user's processes.

> Note that the admin hopefully does not normally run as root.

su1 and sudo exist.

> Even if the admin were not running as a normal user, it is
> expected that normal users can keep tabs on each other.
> The admin may be sleeping. Social pressure is important to
> prevent one user from sucking up all the memory and CPU time.

Privacy is important, too. Imagine each user can see the CEO (or the
admin) executing "ee nakedgirl.jpg".

> > > Note: I'm the procps (ps, top, w, etc.) maintainer.
> > >
> > > Probably I'd have to make /bin/ps run setuid root
> > > to deal with this. (minor changes needed) The same
> > > goes for /usr/bin/top, which I know is currently
> > > unsafe and difficult to fix.

I used unpatched procps 3.1.11, and it worked for me, except pstree.

> > Why do ps and top need to be setuid root to deal with a resticted /proc?
> > What information in /proc/<pid> needs to be available to any and all
> > users?
> Anything provided by traditional UNIX and BSD systems
> should be available.

e.g. the buffer overflow in sendmail? Or all the open relays? :)

The demands to security and privacy have increased. Linux should be able
to provide the requested privacy.

> Users who want privacy can get their
> own computer. So, these need to work:
> ps -ef
> ps -el
> ps -ej
> ps axu
> ps axl
> ps axj
> ps axv
> w
> top

Works as intended. Only pstree breaks, if init isn't visible.

> > > If you restricted this new ability to root, then I'd
> > > have much less of an objection. (not that I'd like it)
> >
> > How about a boot parameter or sysctl to enable the chmod'ability of
> > /proc/<pid>, defaulting to off? But I'd like to resolve your more
> > general objections above first, if possible. :)

I'd prefer a minimum and a maximum mask. If the admin wants to enforce
privacy, he can do it, and if he wants the users to spy on each other, so
be it.
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
23. What do mean by "fired"?

Friß, Spammer: kRT8@[]
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: 2005-03-22 14:11    [W:0.083 / U:16.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site