linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable namespaced file capabilities

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:   Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:01:08 -0500
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        lkp@...org, xiaolong.ye@...el.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        christian.brauner@...lbox.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable namespaced file capabilities

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> On 6/23/2017 9:30 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> >> Or maybe just security.ns.capability, taking James' comment into account.
> > That last one may be suitable as an option, useful for his particular
> > (somewhat barbaric :) use case, but it's not ok for the general solution.
> 
> security.ns@...=100.capability

I'm ok with this.  It gives protection from older kernels, and puts
the 'ns@...=' at predictable locations for security and trusted.

> It makes the namespace part explicit and separate from
> the rest of the attribute name. It also generalizes for
> other attributes.
> 
> security.ns@...=1000@...ck=WestOfOne.SMACK64

Looks good to me.

Do we want to say that '.' ends the attribute list?  That of
course means '.' cannot be in the attributes.  Perhaps end
with '@@' instead?  Just a thought.

What do others think?

thanks,
-serge