Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:21:31 -0400 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Seahorse issues Message-ID: <1208024491.1327.5.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1208022694.82222.25.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <47FD09AC.2020907@FreeBSD.org> <1207776230.61729.28.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <47FD34E8.2000005@FreeBSD.org> <1207872846.87478.38.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <47FF66E3.8000304@FreeBSD.org> <47FF722B.109@FreeBSD.org> <1207929297.55415.13.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <1208018626.10093.7.camel@localhost> <1208021918.82222.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <1208022694.82222.25.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-hYee265QJkydW8rIMtxI Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 13:51 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 12:43 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > > >=20 > > > As for the mlock() privilege issue, I am not sure what we'll do about > > > that. It would be nice, at some point, to support that feature for > > > normal users. As long as I'm diligent about my swap-space, etc... and > > > access to my workstation, I'm *pretty* secure. Things like common-use > > > lab computers, etc... are probably more appropriate for this feature. > >=20 > > Since we already have an rlimit for locked memory (RLIMIT_MEMLOCK), and > > it is used by the mlock(2) syscall, what about the attached patch to ad= d > > a sysctl to control user access to mlock (but not allowing mlockall(2))= ? > > This has been tested to fix the gnome-keyring issue when the sysctl is > > set to 1. If this is agreeable, I can add some manpage docs as well. >=20 > Minor modification to allow munlock(2) as well as mlock(2). >=20 > http://www.marcuscom.com/downloads/vm_mmap.c.diff >=20 > Joe >=20 I've reviewed these patches, and also read up on the Linux 2.6.9+ implementation, as well as referred to various documentations about it. I'd like to float an email to current@ and see what comes up there regarding unprivileged mlock(2). There might already be a "more proper" approach that just isn't being employed. The one thing that worries me is whether or not this could be used by a local user to bring about a DoS on a machine. I *think* that, if you set the hard limit during startup, then enforce a good soft-limit, then you'll be pretty safe. Anyhow, I'll see what sort of comments I can get. -- Coleman Kane --=-hYee265QJkydW8rIMtxI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkgA/aYACgkQcMSxQcXat5ezTwCeIGkvNU1pBN/0f4k0OcYjJfno b7sAn2zsXkps0Fm8H0ouM2Q/ZTLC6vBP =538F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hYee265QJkydW8rIMtxI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1208024491.1327.5.camel>