linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] [PATCH] prctl: Add PR_SET_MM codes to set up mm

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:	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:58:40 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] [PATCH] prctl: Add PR_SET_MM codes to set up
 mm_struct entires v3

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:49:38PM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > When we restore a task we need to set up text, data and data
> > heap sizes from userspace to the values a task had at
> > checkpoint time. This patch adds auxilary prctl codes for that.
> > 
> > While most of them have a statistical nature (their values
> > are involved into calculation of /proc/<pid>/statm output)
> > the start_brk and brk values are used to compute an allowed
> > size of program data segment expansion. Which means an arbitrary
> > changes of this values might be dangerous operation. So to restrict
> > access the following requirements applied to prctl calls:
> > 
> >   - The process has to have CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability granted.
> 
> This is very dangerous feature and useless from regular admins.

Except brk() call I don't see where it might be extremelly
dangerous at moment but indeed it might become very dangerous
once code grows. Still if evil minded person got CAP_SYS_ADMIN
these prctls are least thing one should carry about.

> Moreover, CAP_SYS_ADMIN has a pretty overweight meanings and
> we can't disable it on practical. So, I have a question. Why
> don't you make new capability for checkpoint?
> 

It's not a problem to introduce CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, but
would it be accepted? I mean, are we fine with new capability
introduction? If yes -- I'll add new one and rebase the patch.

	Cyrill
--
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/