Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220131051558.77127-1-morgan@kernel.org> <d3fc9d9-d99e-a5ab-10a4-7cc60c97e1e@namei.org>
In-Reply-To: <d3fc9d9-d99e-a5ab-10a4-7cc60c97e1e@namei.org>
From:   "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 20:29:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CALQRfL6ij=Hr44W_0Kwq+buWuinBB-JJAQtGi80CZkLT0D=Q7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: add SecBits field to /proc/<PID>/status
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

James,

I'm not sure how to address this concern. Is there a specific issue
like the characters used in the newly added line are problematic in
some way? (I think '.' is the only character introduced by this change
that I don't currently find in, say, /proc/1/status, but if I create a
file called foo.bin and execute it, its status file contains that
character.)

In a more general sense, how might this change be problematic in a way
that, say fe719888344cc (from 2020-12-15) which added the line
"SpeculationIndirectBranch:\t..."  was not of similar concern? I've
tried to be consistent with the formatting etc. Am I missing
something?

Thanks

Andrew


On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:45 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
>
> > Securebits strongly influence the way Capabilities work for a process,
> > make them visible in the proc status files.
>
> My concern is that this might break some existing userspace code which
> parses the status file.
>
>
> --
> James Morris
> <jmorris@namei.org>
>