Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:14:14 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arve =?utf-8?B?SGrDuG5uZXbDpWc=?= <arve@android.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: pidfd design
Message-ID: <20190320191412.5ykyast3rgotz3nu@brauner.io>
References: <20190319231020.tdcttojlbmx57gke@brauner.io>
 <20190320015249.GC129907@google.com>
 <CAKOZuetJzg_EiyuK7Pa13X3LKuBbreg7zJ5g4uQv_uV4wpmZjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190320035953.mnhax3vd47ya4zzm@brauner.io>
 <CAKOZuet3-VhmC3oHtEbPPvdiar_k_QXTf0TkgmH9LiwmW-_oNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A06C5BB-9171-4E70-BE31-9574B4083A9F@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190320182649.spryp5uaeiaxijum@brauner.io>
 <CAKOZuevHbQtrq+Nb-jw1L7O72BmAzcXmbUnfnseeXZjX4PE4tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190320185156.7bq775vvtsxqlzfn@brauner.io>
 <CALCETrXO=V=+qEdLDVPf8eCgLZiB9bOTrUfe0V-U-tUZoeoRDA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXO=V=+qEdLDVPf8eCgLZiB9bOTrUfe0V-U-tUZoeoRDA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:58:57AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> >
> > You're misunderstanding. Again, I said in my previous mails it should
> > accept pidfds optionally as arguments, yes. But I don't want it to
> > return the status fds that you previously wanted pidfd_wait() to return.
> > I really want to see Joel's pidfd_wait() patchset and have more people
> > review the actual code.
> 
> Just to make sure that no one is forgetting a material security consideration:

Andy, thanks for commenting!

> 
> $ ls /proc/self
> attr             exe        mountinfo      projid_map    status
> autogroup        fd         mounts         root          syscall
> auxv             fdinfo     mountstats     sched         task
> cgroup           gid_map    net            schedstat     timers
> clear_refs       io         ns             sessionid     timerslack_ns
> cmdline          latency    numa_maps      setgroups     uid_map
> comm             limits     oom_adj        smaps         wchan
> coredump_filter  loginuid   oom_score      smaps_rollup
> cpuset           map_files  oom_score_adj  stack
> cwd              maps       pagemap        stat
> environ          mem        personality    statm
> 
> A bunch of this stuff makes sense to make accessible through a syscall
> interface that we expect to be used even in sandboxes.  But a bunch of
> it does not.  For example, *_map, mounts, mountstats, and net are all
> namespace-wide things that certain policies expect to be unavailable.
> stack, for example, is a potential attack surface.  Etc.
> 
> As it stands, if you create a fresh userns and mountns and try to
> mount /proc, there are some really awful and hideous rules that are
> checked for security reasons.  All these new APIs either need to
> return something more restrictive than a proc dirfd or they need to
> follow the same rules.  And I'm afraid that the latter may be a
> nonstarter if you expect these APIs to be used in libraries.
> 
> Yes, this is unfortunate, but it is indeed the current situation.  I
> suppose that we could return magic restricted dirfds, or we could
> return things that aren't dirfds and all and have some API that gives
> you the dirfd associated with a procfd but only if you can see
> /proc/PID.

What would be your opinion to having a
/proc/<pid>/handle
file instead of having a dirfd. Essentially, what I initially proposed
at LPC. The change on what we currently have in master would be:
https://gist.github.com/brauner/59eec91550c5624c9999eaebd95a70df