From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patrics@interia.pl,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13.1] Patch for invisible threads
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:14:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050916181458.GG19626@ftp.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050916180535.GA10430@nevyn.them.org>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:46:06AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > Further, about actual permission checks that we are doing, can we say: "A
> > > process should be able to see /proc/<pid>/task/* of another process only if
> > > they both belong to same uid or reader is root"? But any such change will
> > > change the behavior of commands like 'ps', right?
> >
> > Right. The real question is whether the current behaviour makes any sense.
> > I've no objections to your patch + modification above, but I really wonder
> > if we should keep current rules in that area.
>
> Why should there be any more restrictions on /proc/<pid>/task than
> there are in /proc? Threads are not listed in the latter, but that's
> strictly for performance/usability; you can enumerate threads in /proc
> by just trying all the valid PIDs.
But we *do* see processes outside of chroot jail in /proc. That's the
point - we have seriously inconsistent rules here.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-16 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-12 17:46 [PATCH 2.6.13.1] Patch for invisible threads Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-12 20:49 ` Andrew Morton
2005-09-13 13:10 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-13 14:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-13 16:51 ` Al Viro
2005-09-13 17:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-13 17:12 ` Al Viro
2005-09-13 21:30 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-13 21:56 ` Roland McGrath
2005-09-13 21:57 ` Al Viro
2005-09-13 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-14 1:47 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-14 1:52 ` Al Viro
2005-09-14 14:37 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-09-15 0:30 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-14 1:50 ` Al Viro
2005-09-15 0:31 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-15 0:55 ` Roland McGrath
2005-09-15 1:38 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-15 2:12 ` Al Viro
2005-09-15 7:29 ` Roland McGrath
2005-09-15 1:18 ` Al Viro
2005-09-16 0:54 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-16 7:46 ` Al Viro
2005-09-16 15:06 ` Sripathi Kodi
2005-09-16 18:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-09-16 18:14 ` Al Viro [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050916181458.GG19626@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=patrics@interia.pl \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.