Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 09:05:18 +0200 From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: Joshua Hudson <joshudson@...il.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: posix_spawn * Rich Felker: > This is not safe and creates a false sense that something broken might > work. Moreover it's a vulnerability to use it this way. You have a > window where different tasks sharing VM space are executing with > different privilege levels, and thereby one is able to seize execution > of the other and achieve its privilege level. That's a non-sequitur. A shared address space does not necessarily mean that execution under one set of credentials will have unrestricted effects on executions under different credentials within the same address space. If the executions themselves are constrained, this can be completely safe. It is true that if there is one unconstrained execution in an address space, then the whole thing is tainted, but that this isn't the relevant scenario for things like file servers (which do not execute code on behalf of clients). I don't know where you got this idea, but it is wrong. I'm sorry.
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.