linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Exporting capability code/name pairs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:57:00 +0900
From:	KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
CC:	KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...gai.gr.jp>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, jmorris@...ei.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exporting capability code/name pairs

> There is also the issue of compiled code which explicitly raises and
> lowers capabilities around critical code sections (ie., as they were
> intended to be used) is also not well served by this change.
> 
> That is, unless the code was compiled with things like CAP_MAC_ADMIN
> being #define'd then it won't be able to do things like cap_set_flag()
> appropriately.

A new function will be necessary, like:
    cap_value_t cap_get_value_by_name(const char *cap_name);

If a program tries to use specific capabilities explicitly, it can
apply pre-defined capability code like CAP_MAC_ADMIN.

However, when we implement a program which can deal with arbitrary
capabilities, it should obtain codes of them dynamically, because
it enables to work itself on the feature kernel.

Thanks,

> Cheers
> 
> Andrew
> 
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> Andrew Morgan wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>>>> Remaining issues:
>>>> - We have to mount securityfs explicitly, or use /etc/fstab.
>>>>   It can cause a matter when we want to use this feature on
>>>>   very early phase on boot. (like /sbin/init)
>>> I'm not altogether clear how you intend this to work.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that some future version of libcap will require that
>>> securityfs be mounted before it (libcap) will work?
>> Yes, but implementing this feature on securityfs might be not good
>> idea as as James said. If this feature is on procfs or sysfs, it is
>> not necessary to mount securityfs explicitly.
>>
>> Thanks,
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFHfD7n+bHCR3gb8jsRAsgcAKDY6qXBR3JV2addHUg5sxyZHJEkDQCfdLOL
> zJlf3T4SQsUNENr3kwR5pr8=
> =v8C5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/