Alexey Izbyshev <izbys...@ispras.ru> added the comment:
Thank you for the answers, Kyle! > I'll be preparing a patch for our posix_spawn's signal handling. Great! > My mistake in my setuid assessment was pointed out to me- it doesn't seem > like a highly likely attack vector, but it is indeed possible. The specific scenario with non-synchronized posix_spawn/setuid is certainly not a good practice and could probably be considered an application bug (such application effectively spawns a child with "random" privileges -- depending on whether setuid() completed before or after vfork()). That said, in Linux C libraries protection from that scenario is usually achieved automatically if all signals are blocked before vfork(). This is the result of a Linux-specific detail: at syscall level, setuid() affects a single thread only, but setuid() library function must affect the process as a whole. This forces C libraries to signal all threads when setuid() is called and wait until all threads perform setuid() syscall. This waiting can't complete until vfork() returns (because signals are blocked), so setuid() is effectively postponed. I don't know how setuid() behaves on FreeBSD (so the above may be not applicable at all). > If the child errored out, they will indeed be properly reapable at that point > due to how vfork is implemented -- any observation to the contrary is to be > considered a bug. Ah, that's good, thanks for the confirmation! ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35537> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
