[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091231214621.GA14116@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:46:21 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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>,
Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
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
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > Since there is already independent support for disabling file
> > capabilities (the privilege escalation part), I see these two
> > mechanisms as separable.
>
> I guess there is something that resembles support for disabling
> privilege escalation. The problem is that it requires privilege to
> use it.
>
> I have no problem with expressing this in a fine grained manner internally
> to the kernel but the user space interface needs to be atomic so that
> we can enable this all without privilege.
>
> Further I may be off but I think the implementation would be more
> challenging than what I have already posted. That doesn't mean it
> won't be more useful long term.
>
> Eric
Right, what we can currently do with capabilities is:
1. drop capabilities from the bounding set. This is
privileged because it is fine-grained, and can trick
capability-unaware privileged programs.
2. drop CAP_SETUID from pP, pI, and the bounding set,
to prevent any future setuids. Privileged for the
same reason as 1.
3. set SECURE_NOROOT and SECURE_NOSUIDFIXUP, so that
uid 0 won't automatically get privileges.
It doesn't provide a way for stopping setuid on setuid binaries, though,
and as we've previously noted, while we'd *like* to say that uids and
privileges can be treated separately, in reality the unprivileged
root user still owns most of the system. So we should also provide the
per-task nosuid bit, meaning do not change uid for a setuid binary. This
could be treated as another securebit,
SECURE_NOSUID
So if the capabilities module supports a special
prctl(PR_SET_NOSUID)
which at the same time completely empties pP, pE, pI, and
the bounding set, and sets the SECURE_NOSUID securebit, that
should be safe for an unprivileged user. (There is no need
for SECURE_NOROOT and SECURE_NOSUIDFIXUP in that case obviously).
Or, it could set SECURE_NOSUID|SECURE_NOROOT|SECURE_NOSUID_FIXUP
(and the corresponding _LOCKED bits).
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists