Re: rights(4) split? CAP_WRITE -> CAP_WRITE_DATA + CAP_WRITE_CTRL
- In reply to: Vinícius_dos_Santos_Oliveira : "Re: rights(4) split? CAP_WRITE -> CAP_WRITE_DATA + CAP_WRITE_CTRL"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:19:51 UTC
On 6/3/26 12:21, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira wrote: > Em ter., 2 de jun. de 2026 às 15:20, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> escreveu: >> I'm looking at an application where it would be useful to be able to construct a socketpair(2) that can't be used to send fds over, out of an abundance of caution. > > FWIW Linux added SO_PASSRIGHTS to disable the reception of fds: > https://lwn.net/Articles/1023085/ > Indeed, this is an independently useful feature that I would love to adopt. >> The application in prison0 is effectively a broker between two jails that it hands each an end of the socketpair, then steps out of the way -- I don't see a reason to leave it capable of carrying SCM_RIGHTS. > > This case can't be dealt with using Linux's SO_PASSRIGHTS so a new > design that deviates from previous solutions (such as Linux's) is > required. > Right, if it were instead the case that I trusted that one of the endpoints couldn't be compromised, then I'd happily implement SO_PASSRIGHTS, use it and call it a day- alas, as you pointed out, for a case like this I'm much happier if can revoke the capability completely and not worry about it. > I don't have much to say on this matter, so my comments end here. Thanks, Kyle Evans