linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for "safe" property

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1JN1p3-0001zF-4l@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:09:29 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	serue@...ibm.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, serue@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hch@...radead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for
	"safe" property

> > Maybe sysctls just need to check capabilities, instead of uids.  I
> > think that would make a lot of sense anyway.
> 
> Would it be as simple as tagging the inodes with capability sets?  One
> set for writing, or one each for reading and writing?

Yes, or something even simpler, like mapping the owner permission bits
to CAP_SYS_ADMIN.  There seem to be very few different permissions
under /proc/sys:

--w-------
-r--r--r--
-rw-------
-rw-r--r--

As long as the group and other bits are always the same, and we accept
that the owner bits really mean CAP_SYS_ADMIN and not something else,
then the permission check would not need to look at uids or gids at
all.

Miklos
--
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/