[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080514091526.GB17453@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 02:15:26 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: casey@...aufler-ca.com,
lsm <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] security: split ptrace checking in proc
* Stephen Smalley (sds@...ho.nsa.gov) wrote:
> As above, it isn't quite a read vs. readwrite mode distinction (which is
> why I called it ptrace_may_readstate rather than just ptrace_may_read),
> and the advantage of implementing it via a new interface is that we only
> need to update the callers where we want to apply this different
> checking, leaving all other callers unmodified and unaffected. So while
> I could do it the way you describe, I'm not sure it would yield a better
> result. Maybe others can chime in with their opinions.
It is slightly ad-hoc. Is it just the audit messages that you described
that made you pick environ and fd, or was there more specific (threat
based) reasoning? Would /proc/pid/fd/ + genfs + e.g. anonfd be a little
wider than just readstate?
Perhaps you could update the comments in ptrace_may_inspect() to clarify.
thanks,
-chris
--
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