linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: allow capable check to permit mmap or low vm space

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: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0711170856200.22208@us.intercode.com.au>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:58:01 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, alan@...hat.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: allow capable check to permit mmap or low
 vm space

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Eric Paris wrote:

> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 08:47 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
> > 
> > > On a kernel with CONFIG_SECURITY but without an LSM which implements
> > > security_file_mmap it is impossible for an application to mmap addresses
> > > lower than mmap_min_addr.
> > 
> > Actually, should we be doing any checking in the dummy module, given that 
> > it is not done with !CONFIG_SECURITY ?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the question.  We already do a number of
> capable type security checks in dummy functions. See dummy_settime() as
> just one example.

I mean just in this case.  If no mmap_min_addr check is done without 
CONFIG_SECURITY, then perhaps none should be done in the dummy module, 
i.e. preserving existing behavior.  LSM is theoretically supposed to be 
unnoticable from a behavioral pov unless a non-dummy module is loaded.

> 
> If we have !CONFIG_SECURITY we don't have any security protections (how
> could we?  we turned them off) so we don't get into dummy hooks.  If we
> do checks or not in uncompiled code doesn't seem to me to matter.
> 
> Maybe I'm just confused...
> 
> -Eric
> 

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
-
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/