linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] seccomp: move no_new

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, 24 Jun 2014 12:51:43 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
	David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] seccomp: move no_new_privs into seccomp

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -struct seccomp { };
>>>> >> +struct seccomp {
>>>> >> +     unsigned long flags;
>>>> >> +};
>>>> >
>>>> > A bit messy ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > I am wondering if we can simply do
>>>> >
>>>> >         static inline bool current_no_new_privs(void)
>>>> >         {
>>>> >                 if (current->no_new_privs)
>>>> >                         return true;
>>>> >
>>>> >         #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
>>>> >                 if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP))
>>>> >                         return true;
>>>> >         #endif
>>>>
>>>> Nope -- privileged users can enable seccomp w/o nnp.
>>>
>>> Indeed, I am stupid.
>>>
>>> Still it would be nice to cleanup this somehow. The new member is only
>>> used as a previous ->no_new_privs, just it is long to allow the concurent
>>> set/get. Logically it doesn't even belong to seccomp{}.
>>
>> We could add an unsigned long atomic flags field to task_struct.
>
> I thought that had gotten shot down originally, but given the current
> state of the patch series, it would be effectively identical, since my
> earlier attempt at keeping sizes the same (with alternate accessors)
> was too messy. I will change this as well.
>
>> Grr.  Why isn't there an unsigned *int* atomic bitmask type?  Even u64
>> would be better.  unsigned long is useless.
>
> Useless beyond 32 bits. ;)

It basically guarantees 32 wasted bits on 64-bit systems.

I guess that unsigned long foo[64/BITS_PER_LONG] would work, bit that's hideous.

--Andy
--
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/