public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>,
	Andrew Morton OSDL <akpm@osdl.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:36:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040914193626.GG9106@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040914193139.GA30827@k3.hellgate.ch>

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:07:47 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Okay, so what kinds of errors are returned in this case, if any, or
>> (worst case) are the offending tasks completely silently dropped?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:31:39PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> In published code: No access control whatsoever. In dev tree: Silently
> dropped. Possible: Any kind of error and additional information that
> makes sense (we have netlink messages as a transport, after all).

I'm not sure what to make of this.


On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:31:39PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> That said, I don't think dropping tasks silently is a "worst case"
> in this scenario. Whatever your error report is going to be, it will
> boil down to saying "some tasks that may or may not live by the time
> you read this have been skipped because some fields that you knew had
> access restrictions prevented providing the information in those cases,
> and I must be cautious about not revealing any sensitive information
> to you so sorry I can't be more helpful". What's a tool going to do
> with that? If it cares to get a complete snapshot, it can simply send
> two requests: One with and one without restricted fields.
> So the tool would, say, request PID/VmSize in the first message and
> environ in the second message. Since only the owner can read the
> environment, the second request would yield answers only for a subset
> of the total process table.

This sounds safe enough, though it's unclear how to predict what fields
may be restricted. I suppose one doesn't try and requests one field at
a time for all tasks in this model of interaction with userspace.


-- wli

  reply	other threads:[~2004-09-14 19:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-09-08 18:40 [0/1][ANNOUNCE] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-08 18:41 ` [1/1][PATCH] " Roger Luethi
2004-09-09  0:35   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  0:43     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:15       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:17         ` [1/2] rediff nproc v2 vs. 2.6.9-rc1-mm4 William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:21           ` [2/2] handle CONFIG_MMU=n and use new vm stats for CONFIG_MMU=y William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:22             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:26             ` [3/2] round up text memory to the nearest page in fs/proc/task_mmu.c William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 18:43     ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 18:49       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:00         ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:02           ` [4/2] consolidate __task_mem() and __task_mem_cheap() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:07             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:15               ` [5/2] fix nommu VSZ reporting in consolidated task_mem() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:11         ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:23           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 21:19             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-10 15:30             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:25           ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  4:58             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  5:59             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  6:18               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  6:23                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:47                   ` Greg Ungerer
2004-09-14  8:27                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 11:53   ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 17:22     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 17:53       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:01         ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:48           ` Chris Wright
2004-09-10 12:11             ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:55           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 21:05             ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 21:25             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:36               ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  5:00                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  6:44                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  7:10                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:55                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  8:01                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  9:27                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 15:37                           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 16:01                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 16:37                               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 17:15                                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 17:43                                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 18:45                                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:07                                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 19:31                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:36                                           ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-09-14 19:50                                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 11:44                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:02                                           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:20                                             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-15 20:33                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:44                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 18:37                                 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 18:55                                   ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:05                                     ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 21:12                                       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:44         ` Chris Wright
2004-09-16 21:43 ` nproc: So? Roger Luethi

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=20040914193626.GG9106@holomorphy.com \
    --to=wli@holomorphy.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=albert@users.sf.net \
    --cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
    --cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=rl@hellgate.ch \
    --cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox