On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Morton
> <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:09:08 -0800 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Morton
>>> > The procfs file's permissions are 0644, yes?  So a process's
>>> > timer_slack is world-readable?  hm.
>>>
>>> This should be 600, IMO.
>>
>> Sounds safer.
>
> So I've gone ahead and addressed this and the other feedback you had.
> But this bit made me realize that I may have missed a key aspect to
> the interface that Android needs.
>
> In particular, the whole point here is to allow a controlling task to
> modify other tasks' timerslack to limit background tasks' power usage
> (and to modify them back to normal when the background tasks become
> foreground tasks). Note that on android different tasks run as
> different users.
>
> Currently, the controlling process has minimally elevated privileges
> (CAP_SYS_NICE). The initial review suggested those privileges should
> be higher (PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH), which I've implemented.  However, I'm
> realizing that by moving to the proc interface, the filesystem
> permissions here put yet another barrier in the way.
>
> While the 600 permissions makes initial sense, it does limit these
> controlling tasks with extra privileges (though not root) from
> modifying the timerslack, since they cannot open the file to begin
> with.
>
> So.... Does world writable (plus the PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_FSCREDS check)
> make more sense here?  Or is there a better way for a system to tweak
> the default permissions for procfs entries? (And if so, does that
> render the PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH... check unnecessary?).
>
> Apologies. I'm fighting a head-cold, so I'm not feeling particularly sharp 
> here.

Is timerslack sensitive at all? You could add the ptrace test to the
_show function too, maybe. Then 0666 would solve the open issue
without leaking the timerslack.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security

Reply via email to