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: <200911101028.10797.sgrubb@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:28:10 -0500
From:	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	George Wilson <gcwilson@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: drop SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES?

On Tuesday 10 November 2009 09:07:39 am Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> I think that's the case most users will care about, whereas the
> remaining differences between CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y
> and =n are that with CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y :
> 
> 	(1) certain security hooks (task_setscheduler, task_setioprio, and
> 	task_setnice) do capability set comparisions,
> 	(2) it is possible to drop capabilities from the bounding set,
> 	(3) it is possible to set per-task securelevels,
> 	(4) and it is possible to add any capability to your inheritable
> 	set if you have CAP_SETPCAP.
> 
> Does anyone know of cases where CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n
> is still perceived as useful?

As a library writer, I wished that the kernel behavior was either consistent, 
or there is an API that I can use to find out what model we are operating 
under. The biggest issue is that for a distribution we know the assumptions 
the distribution should be running under. But end users are free to build 
their own kernel that has it disabled. This has already lead to dbus not 
working at all.

I also take issue with probing the capability version number returning EINVAL 
when its the only way to find out what the preferred version is.

-Steve
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ