From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 6 6:38: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5515A37B401; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 06:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA64818; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:38:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Robert Watson Cc: Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing ptrace(2)'s dependency on procfs(5) References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 06 Oct 2001 15:38:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 21 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Robert Watson writes: > On 6 Oct 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Should I also change p_candebug() to always deny the request if p2 is a > > system process? That will save quite a lot of checks in ptrace() and > > procfs, and possibly some other places as well. > Hmm. An interesting question. [...] > > If the P_SYSTEM check is first, and returns (EINVAL), then a jailed > process can enumerate the system process space. Not a huge risk, but not > quite in keeping with the intent of p_cansee(). > > Another choice is to put the check in p_candebug(). [...] I'm confused - I think you misread my question; I was suggesting adding the P_SYSTEM check to p_candebug(), not p_cansee(). If you did not misread my question, you'll have to clarify what you meant in the above three paragraphs :) DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message