From: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
To: Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
vendor-sec@lst.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
security@linux.kernel.org
Subject: PID reuse safety for userspace apps (Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [Security] [vendor-sec] [BUG/PATCH/RFC] Oops while completing async USB via usbdevio)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:20:48 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050927172048.GA3423@openwall.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050927165206.GB20466@master.mivlgu.local>
[ I am changing the topic somewhat, so I've trimmed the CC list and
adjusted the Subject. ]
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 08:52:06PM +0400, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
> (Why they did not make a kind of "file descriptor" for processes...)
Actually, I made a proposal back in 1999 which I think would let many
userspace apps deal with PID reuse nicely.
The idea is to introduce a kernel call (it can be a prctl(2) setting,
although my pseudo-code "defines" an entire syscall for simplicity)
which would "lock" the invoking process' view of a given PID (while
letting the PID get reused - so there's no added risk of DoS). The
original posting and subsequent thread can be seen here:
http://lists.nas.nasa.gov/archives/ext/linux-security-audit/1999/08/msg00108.html
The proposal itself (unedited since 1999, but the idea holds) is as
follows:
in task_struct:
int locked_pid;
int sys_lockpid(int pid)
{
int old;
old = current->locked_pid;
current->locked_pid = pid;
return old;
}
on kill(2) and ptrace(2):
if (pid > 0 && -pid == current->locked_pid)
return -ESRCH;
on execve(2):
current->locked_pid = 0;
on fork(2), in get_pid(), where last_pid is the PID being allocated:
for_each_task (p)
if (p->locked_pid == last_pid) p->locked_pid = -lastpid;
in applications, such as killall(1):
do {
lockpid(target);
if (!need_to_kill(target)) break;
if (kill(target, SIGKILL) == 0) break;
} while (errno == ESRCH);
lockpid(0);
Performance can be improved by maintaining a global locked_pid_count,
so that fork(2) could skip the loop if count is zero. Implementing
this would require an extra spinlock (the pseudo-code above will need
some anyway, if actually implemented).
It is possible to clear locked_pid in kill(2) and ptrace(2), but I'm
not sure whether that's a good idea, as we could have these syscalls
in signal handlers that are not aware of the new feature.
--
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-27 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-25 15:13 [BUG/PATCH/RFC] Oops while completing async USB via usbdevio Harald Welte
2005-09-27 8:04 ` [vendor-sec] " Greg KH
2005-09-27 9:13 ` Greg KH
[not found] ` <20050927110319.GD1980@piware.de>
2005-09-27 12:22 ` [vendor-sec] " Greg KH
2005-09-27 12:48 ` [vendor-sec] " Christoph Hellwig
2005-09-27 12:57 ` Greg KH
2005-09-27 12:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-09-27 13:09 ` Greg KH
2005-09-27 15:27 ` David Brownell
2005-09-27 14:53 ` [Security] " Linus Torvalds
2005-09-27 16:00 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Sergey Vlasov
2005-09-27 16:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-27 16:52 ` Sergey Vlasov
2005-09-27 17:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-30 10:47 ` Harald Welte
2005-09-30 14:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-30 18:44 ` Chris Wright
2005-09-30 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-30 20:38 ` Chris Wright
2005-09-30 22:08 ` Harald Welte
2005-09-30 22:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-10 17:44 ` Harald Welte
2005-10-10 18:07 ` Chris Wright
2005-10-11 9:45 ` Harald Welte
2005-10-11 23:10 ` [vendor-sec] " Greg KH
2005-10-11 23:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-12 7:24 ` Harald Welte
2005-10-13 5:51 ` Horms
2005-10-11 13:57 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2005-10-10 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-10 22:47 ` Chris Wright
2005-10-10 20:03 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Alan Stern
2005-10-11 8:28 ` Harald Welte
2005-10-11 17:37 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-11 17:58 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2005-10-11 19:13 ` Alan Stern
2005-10-11 20:02 ` [Security] " Alan Cox
2005-09-27 17:20 ` Solar Designer [this message]
2005-09-27 20:34 ` PID reuse safety for userspace apps (Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [Security] [vendor-sec] [BUG/PATCH/RFC] Oops while completing async USB via usbdevio) Alan Cox
2005-09-27 20:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-27 21:16 ` Solar Designer
2005-09-27 21:03 ` Solar Designer
2005-09-27 16:58 ` [linux-usb-devel] Re: [Security] [vendor-sec] [BUG/PATCH/RFC] Oops while completing async USB via usbdevio Alan Cox
2005-09-27 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-09-27 20:35 ` Alan Cox
2005-10-13 23:00 ` Pete Zaitcev
2005-10-13 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-13 23:56 ` Pete Zaitcev
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=20050927172048.GA3423@openwall.com \
--to=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=security@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=vendor-sec@lst.de \
--cc=vsu@altlinux.ru \
/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