linux-kernel - Re: Ответ: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS

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: <20090318164712.GB27906@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:47:12 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	Igor Zhbanov <izh1979@...il.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	neilb@...e.de, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	SELinux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: Ответ: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to
	CAP_FS_MASK?

Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@...ho.nsa.gov):
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:23 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > But in cap_inode_setxattr, any security.* xattrs are controlled by
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN.  So do you think that this should be changed to a
> > CAP_XATTR_SECURITY capability which can be added to CAP_FS_MASK?
> 
> I think that would be preferable to CAP_SYS_ADMIN, yes.
> 
> > Or do you think it's ok that fsuid=0 does not allow you to set
> > security.selinux (or security.SMACK64, etc) xattrs when selinux is
> > not compiled in?
> 
> Just to be clear, at present fsuid is irrelevant to setting the
> security.* xattrs since it doesn't affect the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability
> at all, so it all depends on the initial capability state prior to using
> setfsuid(), typically the full capability set.

Right.

> > (You may have already answered this with your EOPNOTSUPP comment, but
> > I want to make sure I understand right)
> > 
> > > > Does anyone know what the trusted xattrs are used for?
> > > 
> > > Not beyond what attr(5) says about them.
> > 
> > Well, if attr(5) says CAP_SYS_ADMIN being needed is the very
> > thing that defines these xattrs, then changing that seems a
> > bigger deal.  That really does seem akin to changing kernel-user
> > API.
> 
> Perhaps, although it isn't clear that this API is in use by anyone or in
> use in a way that would actually distinguish based on individual
> capability.
> 
> But if you were to add CAP_SYS_ADMIN to CAP_FS_MASK in order to ensure
> that setfsuid() does in fact affect all filesystem accesses, how much
> meaningful difference remains between fsuid==0 and euid==0?  It
> obviously takes you far afield of only affecting filesystem accesses.

Ok, thanks for time.  It's all pretty clear to me now:

CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE need to be added to the CAP_FS_MASK
because, in 2.0 timeframe, fsuid==0 gave you those privileges.

xattrs didn't exist back then, so the setting of security.* and
trusted.* xattrs doesn't need to be enabled by fsuid==0.  So really
CAP_SETFCAP also doesn't need to be added to CAP_FS_MASK either.

I'll send out a patch later today for 2.6, unless Igor wants to
do it (since he's the one who found this originally).

thanks,
-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/