process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs
process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs
Posted Jan 21, 2020 21:17 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)In reply to: process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs by dskoll
Parent article: process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs
Well... you *could* have something like this:
long process_syscall(int pidfd, long number, ...)
It would behave as-if process had invoked syscall(2) with the remaining arguments. Maybe you also whitelist number to syscalls that actually make sense to invoke remotely, and are unlikely to cause massive reentrancy or threading issues.
Posted Jan 22, 2020 2:42 UTC (Wed)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 23, 2020 19:03 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
It was mostly a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, and I'm pretty sure actually doing this would be a Bad Idea. But if you really wanted to do it, you could probably use the signals API to deal with those issues. That is:
process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs
process_madvise(), pidfd capabilities, and the revenge of the PIDs