linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: Yama: add ptrace relationship tracking interface

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:	Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:59:03 +0400
From:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: Yama: add ptrace relationship tracking interface

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:30:58PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 16:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > +	if (mode == PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH &&
> > +	    ptrace_scope &&
> > +	    !capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) &&
> > +	    !task_is_descendant(current, child) &&
> > +	    !ptracer_exception_found(current, child))
> > +		rc = -EPERM;
> 
> capable() is better to put after all other tests

Right, but...

> as a failed capable()
> might emit a false positive warning into logs or something.

...primarily for another reason: a successful capable() sets
PF_SUPERPRIV, whereas the permission might have been granted without
capable() as well.  The PF_SUPERPRIV flag is visible via BSD process
accounting.

Alexander
--
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/