[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070607225945.1aa71a93@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:59:45 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Miloslav Trmac <mitr@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <aviro@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Audit: Add TTY input auditing
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:20:07 +0200
Miloslav Trmac <mitr@...hat.com> wrote:
> Alan Cox napsal(a):
> >>> + if (filp->f_op->read == tty_read) {
> >>> + disable = 0;
> >>> + break;
> > Why says a tty will always have f->op->read == tty_read ?
> AFAICS from tty_io.c, it will always be tty_read or hung_up_tty_read.
> Normal user processes would exit after SIGHUP and not reopen a TTY.
>
> (I have copied the condition from __do_SAK(). That of course doesn't
> mean it's correct.)
> Mirek
Right it may be hung_up_tty_read that was what bothered me. I've had a
think through the different scenarios and I can't think of a simple one
where I can abuse this as the vhangup() path is current root triggered
and loses the tty (so I can't reopen on it)
There are more complex questions - what happens when the much needed
revoke() goes mainstream [and we fix all the security issues its lack
causes], and the case where I do
login on tty1
login on tty2
On tty1 run a process which sets nohup and causes a vhangup then opens
tty2 while tty2 command line is running some long running program that
doesn't take input that I could plausibly run legitimately (eg a long
complex sql query, or a slow security check etc)
Alan
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists