On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Mon, 2006-Apr-03 08:19:00 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
I don't really see what the problem is. ESRCH seems perfectly
reasonable for trying to kill (even sig 0) a process from a
different jail. If you're in a jail, then you shouldn't have
knowledge of processes from other jails.
I agree in general. The problem here is that SysV IPC isn't
jail-aware - there's a single SysV IPC address space across the
physical system. This confuses (eg) postgres because it can
see the SHM for a postgres instance in another jail but kill(2)
claims that the process associated with that SHM doesn't exist.
There appear to be two solutions:
1) Add a sysctl to change cr_cansignal() and/or prison_check() to
make processes visible between jails.
2) Change SysV IPC to be jail-aware.
The former is trivial - but has a number of security implications.
And this is what is losing me ... what security implications does being
able to kill(PID, 0) a process pose? I can see allowing kill(PID, TERM) a
process in another jail being a very bad thing, but if its just checking
whether a PID is in use or not, isn't the security issue minimal?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
