linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)

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:	Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:15:34 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Stephen Smalley" <sds@...ch.ncsc.mil>,
	"Casey Schaufler" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v2)

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
>  > >  A task may only be moved to another devcgroup if it is moving to
>  > >  a direct descendent of its current devcgroup.
>  >
>  > What's the rationale for that?
>
>  To prevent it escaping to laxer device permissions, which of course only
>  makes sense if we do what you recommend above :)
>

That makes it impossible for a root process to enter a child cgroup,
do something, and then go back to its own cgroup. Why aren't the
existing cgroup security semantics sufficient?

Paul
--
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/