linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] Unprivileged: Disable raising of privileges

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: <20091231170641.6dd46c6e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:06:41 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...il.com>
Cc:	Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>,
	Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
	Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] Unprivileged: Disable raising of privileges

> Lets step back for a moment.  What is the common issue with both.
> 
> The issue is simple.  "How to I generically tell the secuirty system
> want particular restrictions."

You don't. It's not "the security system", its a whole collection of
completely different models of security and differing tools.

> There is no generic LSM API for application or users to talk to the
> LSM and say I want the following restricted.

That's a meaningless observation I think because security doesn't work
that way. Removing specific features from a specific piece of code
generally isn't a security feature - its only meaningful in the context
of a more general policy and that policy expression isn't generic.

> To control the LSM the applications are expected to know what the LSM.
>  This has caused items like chrome major issues.

..

> Application does not need to be informed what is disabled from it.

So why does it cause chrome problems ?


There are multiple security models because nobody can agree on what they
should look like, just like multiple desktops. Each of them is based on a
totally different conceptual model so the idea of a single interface to
them is a bit meaningless.

Alan
--
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/