Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] proc: instantiate only pids that we can ptrace on 'limit_pids=1' mount option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If "limit_pids=1" mount option is set then do not instantiate pids that
> we can not ptrace. "limit_pids=1" means that procfs should only contain
> pids that the caller can ptrace.
>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 2e0f661..a663284 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -3149,6 +3149,7 @@ struct dentry *proc_pid_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry * dentry, unsign
>         unsigned tgid;
>         struct proc_fs_info *fs_info = proc_sb(dir->i_sb);
>         struct pid_namespace *ns = fs_info->pid_ns;
> +       int limit_pids = proc_fs_limit_pids(fs_info);

Shouldn't the addition of proc_fs_limit_pids() be in this patch?

Also, can we name it something self-documented?
"ptraceable_pids_only=1", perhaps?  Or even pids=ptraceable (as
opposed to pids=all or maybe other choices in the future)?

--Andy



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux