![]() |
|
Message-ID: <cf07f0732eb94dbfa67c9d56ceba738e@AcuMS.aculab.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:23:54 +0000 From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> To: 'Andy Lutomirski' <luto@...nel.org>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> CC: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com> Subject: RE: forkat(int pidfd), execveat(int pidfd), other awful things? From: Andy Lutomirski > Sent: 01 February 2021 18:30 ... > 2. A sane process creation API. It would be delightful to be able to > create a fully-specified process without forking. This might end up > being a fairly complicated project, though -- there are a lot of > inherited process properties to be enumerated. Since you are going to (eventually) load in a program image have to do several system calls to create the process isn't likely to be a problem. So using separate calls for each property isn't really an issue and solves the horrid problem of the API structure. So you could create an embryonic process that inherits a lot of stuff from the current process, the do actions that sort out the fds, argv, namespace etc. Finally running the new program. It would probably make implement posix_spawn() easier. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.