A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#2[deleted]
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#3It reminds me SELinux.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#4For another example of a similarly beautiful interface that echoes "difficult solution made stupidly simple to use", checkpointing under DragonFly BSD: http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=sys_checkpo...
On an unrelated note, I've always had respect for how Theo de Raadt is both the project leader of a complete BSD system, yet also an active hacker. Contrast to Linus Torvalds, who's mostly a manager nowadays.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#5This is an interesting idea, but something about having various "behaviours" baked into the logic concerns me. I'm certain that Theo has thought about this and understands the implications better than I do though.
For example, if your process has TAME_GETPW opening /var/run/ypbind.lock enables TAME_INET. The reasoning behind this makes sense, but now it means that yp always has to open that file before it can do its thing. The behaviour of yp always opening that file before accessing the network is now required by the kernel.
The saving grace is that OpenBSD (and the other BSDs) are developed as a unified system, so if yp ever changes to no longer use that file, that change will only come as part of a version upgrade that includes the kernel, etc.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#6For another example of a similarly beautiful interface that echoes "difficult solution made stupidly simple to use", checkpointing under DragonFly BSD: http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=sys_checkpo... On an unrelated note, I've always had respect for how Theo de Raadt is both the project leader of a complete BSD system, yet also an active hacker. Contrast to Linus Torvalds, who's mostly a manager nowad…
This is a very good point. I definitely see the value in it, and making it simple to use means that programs are more likely to actually use it.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#7So, do I have it right that this is effectively a way of a program being able to declare to the operating system "I shouldn't ever do "?
Because, if so, that makes a whole lot of sense. (Adding security "for free" generally does).
This could conflict with on-the-fly upgrades, though. If it turns out that some later version of your program does in fact require , then you'll have to kill and restart the process as opposed to upgrading on-the-fly. Perhaps not the end of the world, but worth noting.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#8So, do I have it right that this is effectively a way of a program being able to declare to the operating system "I shouldn't ever do "? Because, if so, that makes a whole lot of sense. (Adding security "for free" generally does). This could conflict with on-the-fly upgrades, though. If it turns out that some later version of your program does in fact require , then you'll have to kill and restart the process as oppo…
That's my interpretation of it. Basically your program does its initialization, then says to the system "Ok, here's all I need from this point forward." Making this level of security this easy is a huge win.
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#9[deleted]
Re: A subsystem to restrict programs into a “reduced feature operating model”
#10For another example of a similarly beautiful interface that echoes "difficult solution made stupidly simple to use", checkpointing under DragonFly BSD: http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=sys_checkpo... On an unrelated note, I've always had respect for how Theo de Raadt is both the project leader of a complete BSD system, yet also an active hacker. Contrast to Linus Torvalds, who's mostly a manager nowad…
On an unrelated note, but tangential to your link, why can I not save and restore processes? It seems like something that would be relatively easy to do - suspend all threads, save the thread control blocks, mark all pages as fault-on-write, resume threads, and start saving pages, unmarking them once they are saved. If/when a thread faults, copy (or save immediately) that page and then resume that thread. (Or potentially don't resume the threads until after you save everything, although that may cause problems...) You need to deal with file handles / etc, but that can be done too.
Not really different than hibernation.