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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox