From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 3 23:41:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE14D16A446; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:41:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C91543D4C; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:41:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369428244C2; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:40:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79086-08; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:41:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B858B82447F; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:40:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7758C3CEBC; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:41:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734C63C95D; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:41:06 -0300 (ADT) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:41:06 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: <20060403234918.X76562@fledge.watson.org> Message-ID: <20060403204031.V947@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060403163039.O947@ganymede.hub.org> <20060403234918.X76562@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org Cc: Daniel Eischen , Peter Jeremy , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:41:05 -0000 yOn Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> This falls under "well,we broke kill() so that it now reports a PID is not >> in use even though it is, so its has to be the application that fixes it" >> ... and you *still* haven't shown *why* kill() reporting a PID is in use, >> even if its not in the current jail, is such a security threat ... > > It is an issue of completeness and consistency. We implement a single set of > access control checks between processes, and try to avoid exceptions to them. > This is one of my largest architectural gripes about access control in 4.x, > actually: everywhere you look, the same "check" is implemented differently. > Sometimes signal checks are done way, other times, other ways. Likewise, > debugging, monitoring, etc. In 5.x forward, we use a centralized set of > access control checks in order to provide consistent, reliable, and easy to > analyze policy. The more exceptions we introduced, the further we get from > that goal. Agreed, in principle ... its just locking down something without a way around it is ... painful :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664