public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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