Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: [...] >> Also, where do we get to veto attempts to checkpoint the task in the >> first place? If ptrace, I think we'd want it treated as a >> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH (also used for /proc/pid/mem) rather than just >> PTRACE_MODE_READ (reading other /proc/pid info). > > The checkpointing of ipc objects goes through an ipcperms(perm, S_IROTH) > check in ipc/checkpoint (at top of > http://git.ncl.cs.columbia.edu/?p=linux-cr.git;a=blob;f=ipc/checkpoint.c;h=88996e2b7abf328bd1b263400798ed5bd4924f48;hb=HEAD > ) > > But yes, for the task itself we check PTRACE_MODE_READ (line 280 in > http://git.ncl.cs.columbia.edu/?p=linux-cr.git;a=blob;f=checkpoint/checkpoint.c;h=a6dee4fb1085a47095f24443c48683a7fbc8ac59;hb=HEAD ) > I had thought that PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH implied the permission to > actually modify the task. If it also can imply a "very invasive" read > then changing it certainly seems right. Hmmm... I was unaware of this: http://lwn.net/Articles/282930/ So yes, probably need to change that. Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers