On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:21:29PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 06/21/2016 10:55 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:41:16AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
The algorithm employed for ptrace access mode checking deterâ
mines whether the calling process is allowed to perform the
corresponding action on the target process, as follows:
1. If the calling thread and the target thread are in the same
thread group, access is always allowed.
2. If the access mode specifies PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS, then for
the check in the next step, employ the caller's filesystem
user ID and group ID (see credentials(7)); otherwise (the
access mode specifies PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS, so) use the
caller's real user ID and group ID.
Might want to add a "for historical reasons" or so here.
Can you be a little more precise about "here", and maybe tell me why
you think it helps?
I'm not sure, but it might be a good idea to add something like this at the
end of 2.:
"(Most other APIs that check one of the caller's UIDs use the effective one.
This API uses the real UID instead for historical reasons.)"
In my opinion, it is inconsistent to use the real UID/GID here, the
effective one would be more appropriate. But since the existing code uses
the real UID/GID and that's not a security issue for existing users of
the ptrace API, this wasn't changed when I added the REALCREDS/FSCREDS
distinction.
I think that for a reader, it might help to point out that in most cases,
when a process is the subject in an access check, its effective UID/GID
are used, and this is (together with kill()) an exception to that rule.
But you're the expert on writing documentation, if you think that that's
too much detail / confusing here, it probably is.