linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] file capabilities: remove CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE

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: <20080925010233.GB7324@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:02:33 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] file capabilities: remove
	CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES

Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@...s-sol.org):
> * Serge E. Hallyn (serue@...ibm.com) wrote:
> > Remove the option to compile the kernel without file capabilities.  Not
> > compiling file capabilities actually makes the kernel less safe, as it
> > includes the possibility for a task changing another task's capabilities.
> > 
> > Some are concerned that userspace tools (and user education) are not
> > up to the task of properly configuring file capabilities on a system.
> > For those cases, there is now the ability to boot with the no_file_caps
> > boot option.  This will prevent file capabilities from being used in
> > the capabilities recalculation at exec, but will not change the rest
> > of the kernel behavior which used to be switchable using the
> > CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES option.
> 
> (note: defconfig has CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y)
>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> 6805157 1018344  671900 8495401  81a129 obj64-defconfig/vmlinux
> 6805151 1018368  671900 8495419  81a13b obj64-defconfig-patch1/vmlinux
> 6805151 1018368  671900 8495419  81a13b obj64-defconfig-patch2/vmlinux
> 6804605 1018344  671900 8494849  819f01 obj64-nofcap/vmlinux
> 6804604 1018344  671900 8494848  819f00 obj64-nofcap-patch1/vmlinux
> 6805150 1018368  671900 8495418  81a13a obj64-nofcap-patch2/vmlinux

(what are you using to get these numbers?)

> The last 2 show the real diff now, add 570 bytes by effectively forcing
> CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES on.

That surprises me - I thought a reasonable amount of code was cut as
well.  Sounds like it may be worth it to refactor some of the code.

> What is being done to enable userspace in distros to make those 570
> bytes generally useful?

Fedora 9 and ubuntu intrepid already have full capabilities support and
modern libcap.  Sles is set to ship with a modern libcap, and according
to what Andreas is saying, if we can provide them with the no_file_caps
boot option then suse is willing to have a kernel with capabilities
turned on.  I think gentoo still comes with libcap-1.  Need to look into
changing that.

I suppose the next baby-step will be to do get rid of setuid on little
things like ping.  Actually using inheritable caps for pseudo-admin
'roles' may be a bit farther off, and a particularly interesting problem
will be to take huge pieces of cross-os software like ssh which make
assumptions about setuid behavior, and find ways to make them work
correctly with capabilities, with capabilities in
SECURE_NOROOT|SECURE_NOSETUIDFIXUP, and with non-linux oses.

-serge
--
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/