Re: pidfd design

[Christian Brauner]

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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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