| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:44:38 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com> Cc: oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] security: Yama LSM On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com> wrote: >> Do you have any objection to my LSM performing ptrace restrictions? >> It's entirely self-contained, and all the major upstream crash >> handlers are already using the prctl() interface it uses to declare >> ptrace attach relationships. > > I don't have the context of what your LSM does. But other LSMs apply their > own rules in security_ptrace(). That's what the hook is for. I'm not sure > why we would object from the perspective of core ptrace functionality. > LSMs are LSMs. Their behavior is between you and your users, as far as I > am concerned. As experts on ptrace and aficionados of its users, we may > have thoughts on what constraints on ptrace users would find annoying. > But that doesn't mean we'd object per se to whatever bizarre constraints > users want to ask an LSM to put on them. Yup, that's precisely what Yama does as well. Sounds like you're not naking an LSM that uses security_ptrace(), then. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook ChromeOS Security -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists