linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] file capabilities: add no_file

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:09:35 +0200
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] file capabilities: add no_file_caps switch (v2)

On Monday 22 September 2008 21:16:04 Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:48 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > (Resend of two patches from late August.  If noone objects, would it be
> > possible to see this pair take a turn in security-testing?)
> >
> > Add a no_file_caps boot option when file capabilities are
> > compiled into the kernel (CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y).
>
> Is there a reason you didn't just use a filecaps=0/1 approach ala the
> selinux= boot parameter?  And let the default value be selectable as
> well?

Sure, that would work as well, except that I think that file capabilities 
should always default to "on" as they will become a standard security 
mechanism before long. We just don't have much system management tool support 
yet, and I would like to give that some more time safely, without putting 
users at unnecessary risk.

I think we could get rid of the command line option again in a year or two ...

> Seems a bit confusing to offer a no_file_caps option with different
> behavior than disabling it at build time.

I agree. These other behaviorial changes should not depend on 
CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES; the old behavior should just be fixed 
instead.

Thanks,
Andreas
--
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/