linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 39/41] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

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:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:00:01 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, jjohansen@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/41] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation,
 pathname matching

> don't actually have to care --- if loading an invalid profile can bring down 
> the system, then that's no worse than an arbitrary module that crashes the 
> machine. Not sure if there will ever be user loadable profiles; at least at 
> that point we had to care.

CAP_SYS_RAWIO is needed to do arbitary patching/loading in the capability
model so if you are using lesser capabilities it is a (minor) capability
rise but not a big problem, just ugly and wanting a fix

> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Replacement needs to allocate a new aa_task_context for each
> > > +	 * task confined by old_profile.  To do this the profile locks
> > > +	 * are only held when the actual switch is done per task.  While
> > > +	 * looping to allocate a new aa_task_context the old_task list
> > > +	 * may get shorter if tasks exit/change their profile but will
> > > +	 * not get longer as new task will not use old_profile detecting
> > > +	 * that is stale.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	do {
> > > +		new_cxt = aa_alloc_task_context(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL);
> > 
> > NOFAIL is usually a bad sign. It should be only used if there is no
> > alternative.
> 
> At this point there is no secure alternative to allocating a task context --- 
> except killing the task, maybe.

Can you count the number needed, preallocate them and then when you know
for sure either succeed or fail the operation as a whole ?
-
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/