[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
    On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 21:19, Kyle Moffett <> wrote:
    > Well, I imagine one typical usecase for closing all FDs is for
    > security isolation purposes (EG: chroot()+etc),

    chroot and security in the same sentence...?

    > and in a great deal of
    > chroot environments you don't have /proc available.  In particular
    > /proc has been a source of a lot of privilege escalations in the past,
    > so avoiding mounting it in a chroot is good security policy if
    > possible.

    The problem is that the kernel exports quite a bit of information only
    through the /proc and /sys filesystems. I might try to finish my
    comprehensive list of functionality depending on /proc sometime soon.
    The list is quite long.

    Not mounting /proc is inconvenient at best, it renders the environment
    unusable quite often and in some cases is outright insecure.. I don't
    think you can use not mounting /proc as an argument. And, as Peter
    said, the loop over the directory content is quite efficient.

    If you want to avoid /proc I suggest you first work on removing the
    dependencies. Of just secure /proc itself.
    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: 2012-04-02 13:41    [W:0.020 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site