From: Amos Waterland <apw@us.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: pwaechtler@mac.com, golbi@mat.uni.torun.pl,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] POSIX message queues
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:00:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020908170004.A3257@kvasir.austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209071716460.17119-100000@localhost.localdomain>; from mingo@elte.hu on Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:17:35PM +0200
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:17:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 pwaechtler@mac.com wrote:
>
> > OTOH I can't see a _big_ problem when a process with sufficient
> > permissions can trash the message queues - otherwise I wonder why file
> > permissions are granted "per user" and not "per process".
>
> yes - furthermore, processes from the same user can 'trash' queues anyway,
> via ptrace() or mmaping /proc.
That is correct, but it is not the issue though. The issue is that
completely unrelated processes can spoof/destroy each other's messages.
If a queue is set up with mq_open(name, O_CREAT|O_RDWR, S_IWOTH, &attr),
the process which set it up expects that "others" (processes not owned
by the user or by users in his/her group) will be able to send, and only
send, messages. If shared memory is used, "others" must be able to
update the data structures representing the queue, so they will be able
to do a lot more than just send.
The fundamental problem is that filesystem permissions do not map
cleanly to message queue permissions. Does this make sense? Thanks.
Amos Waterland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-08 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-29 21:53 pwaechtler
2002-08-30 9:48 ` Amos Waterland
2002-08-31 11:43 ` pwaechtler
2002-08-31 13:14 ` Krzysztof Benedyczak
2002-09-01 0:22 ` Amos Waterland
2002-09-01 1:50 ` Amos Waterland
2002-09-04 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-06 10:04 ` Pavel Machek
2002-09-07 14:16 ` pwaechtler
2002-09-06 22:48 ` Amos Waterland
2002-09-07 14:11 ` pwaechtler
2002-09-07 15:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-08 22:00 ` Amos Waterland [this message]
2002-08-31 12:53 ` Krzysztof Benedyczak
2002-09-07 14:39 ` pwaechtler
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-04 16:03 Manfred Spraul
2002-08-27 21:48 Krzysztof Benedyczak
2002-08-27 22:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-08-31 13:28 ` Krzysztof Benedyczak
2002-09-01 7:24 ` Jakub Jelinek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020908170004.A3257@kvasir.austin.ibm.com \
--to=apw@us.ibm.com \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=golbi@mat.uni.torun.pl \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pwaechtler@mac.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®