bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hacking gnumach to track parental relationship of tasks


From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: Hacking gnumach to track parental relationship of tasks
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:45:38 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Ludovic Courtès, le Mon 16 Sep 2013 12:34:37 +0200, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
> > Richard Braun, le Thu 12 Sep 2013 10:57:25 +0200, a écrit :
> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:38:31AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> > Richard Braun, le Thu 12 Sep 2013 10:33:23 +0200, a écrit :
> >> > > Then why are we discussing interposing system calls ?
> >> > 
> >> > Because a malicious program can still use the trap to escape whatever
> >> > cgroup system we are setting up.
> >> 
> >> I suggest we simply disable the trap versions.
> >
> > Ah, right.
> >
> > I don't have the time to dive into the details, but in the end, couldn't
> > we switch to making task_create rather a proc RPC, rather than relying
> > on process nicely calling the proc proc_child RPC after having created
> > the task? proc would be doing the "kernel" task_create RPC on behalf
> > of the process. The main proc server would actually make a kernel RPC,
> > a sub-hurd proc server would nicely ask for it, thus not having to be
> > root.
> 
> But you’d still need a “real” task_create anyway, no?

It'd be an RPC to te kernel from the main proc server.

> (I think the theory was that it should be possible to have a system
> where both POSIX-personality processes (known to proc) and other tasks
> would coexist in peace and harmony.)

Well, we are not even talking about POSIX here, but about mere tasks,
which should not be allowed to float around without being assigned a
shepherd.

Samuel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]