linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode

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]

Message-ID: <312681.33492.qm@web36609.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 13:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc:	Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook


--- Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> wrote:

> On Friday 25 May 2007 19:43, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > [...] but the AppArmor code could certainly check for that in exec by
> > enforcing the argv[0] convention. It would be perfectly reasonable for a
> > system that is so dependent on pathnames to require that.
> 
> Hmm ... that's a strange idea.

Yeah, I get that a lot.

> AppArmor cannot assume anything about argv[0],
> 
> and it would be a really bad idea to change the well-established semantics of
> 
> argv[0].
> 
> There is no actual need for looking at argv[0], though: AppArmor decides
> based 
> on the actual pathname of the executable...

Right. My point was that if you wanted to use the gzip/gunzip
example of a file with two names being treated differently based
on the name accessed as an argument for AppArmor you could. If
you don't want to, that's ok too. Jeremy raised a reasonable objection,
and AppArmor could address it if y'all chose to do so. I seriously
doubt that enforcing the argv[0] convention would break much, and I
also expect that if it did there's a Consultant's Retirement to be
made fixing the security hole it points out.


Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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/