Re: RFC: on adding new CLONE_* flags [WAS Re: [PATCH 0/4] clone: add CLONE_PIDFD]
From: Florian Weimer
Date: Wed Apr 17 2019 - 08:19:41 EST
* Andy Lutomirski:
> I would personally *love* it if distros started setting no_new_privs
> for basically all processes.
Wouldn't no_new_privs inhibit all security transitions, including those
that reduce privileges? And therefore effectively reduce security?
> Anyway, clone(2) is an enormous mess. Surely the right solution here
> is to have a whole new process creation API that takes a big,
> extensible struct as an argument, and supports *at least* the full
> abilities of posix_spawn() and ideally covers all the use cases for
> fork() + do stuff + exec(). It would be nifty if this API also had a
> way to say "add no_new_privs and therefore enable extra functionality
> that doesn't work without no_new_privs". This functionality would
> include things like returning a future extra-privileged pidfd that
> gives ptrace-like access.
I agree that consistent replacement for the clone system call makes
sense. I'm not sure if covering everything that posix_spawn could do
would make sense. There seems to be some demand to be able to do large
parts of container setup using posix_spawn, so we'll probably add
support for things like writing to arbitrary files eventually. And of
course, proper error reporting, so that you can figure out which file
creation action failed.