lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [2/2] procfs/tasks: add a simple per-task procfs hidepid= field
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net> wrote:

>> + case PR_SET_HIDEPID:
>> + if (arg2 < HIDEPID_OFF || arg2 > HIDEPID_INVISIBLE)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (arg2 < me->hide_pid)
>> + return -EPERM;
>> + me->hide_pid = arg2;
>> + break;
>
> Should we test for ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)||no_new_privs here?
> I think it wouldn't hurt, and I'd like to avoid adding new ways in which
> the execution of setuid programs can be influenced. OTOH, people already
> use hidepid now, and it's not an issue... I'm not sure. Opinions?

Hmm, the existing hidepid= thing is a mount option and that you you of
course can only change with root privs so far, hence the NNP thing
doesn't really apply so far on hidepid.

> @Lafcadio: Do you think that requiring no_new_privs to be set would
> break your usecase? Would nginx need to still be able to execute setuid
> binaries?

I think adding the NNP check would be OK for my use. I'll add this to
the next iteration!

> Aside from this, and the comments Kees already made, this looks good
> to me.

Thanks for the review,

L.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-03 21:22    [W:0.072 / U:13.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site