linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: Use ns_capable_noaudit() when determining net sysctl permissions

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:   Sat, 01 Oct 2016 03:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     dmitry.torokhov@...il.com
Cc:     tyhicks@...onical.com, serge.hallyn@...ntu.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Use ns_capable_noaudit() when determining net
 sysctl permissions

From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:24:31 -0700

> From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
> 
> The capability check should not be audited since it is only being used
> to determine the inode permissions. A failed check does not indicate a
> violation of security policy but, when an LSM is enabled, a denial audit
> message was being generated.
> 
> The denial audit message caused confusion for some application authors
> because root-running Go applications always triggered the denial. To
> prevent this confusion, the capability check in net_ctl_permissions() is
> switched to the noaudit variant.
> 
> BugLink: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465724
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
> Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
> [dtor: reapplied after e79c6a4fc923 ("net: make net namespace sysctls
> belong to container's owner") accidentally reverted the change.]
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>

Applied, but please be clear in the future what tree a patch
is targetting, in this case 'net-next'.

You can indicate this in the Subject line "[PATCH net-next]".