[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100114092328.GB11500@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:23:28 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: 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>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Am?rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Security: Implement disablenetwork semantics. (v4)
> Quoting Michael Stone (michael@...top.org):
> > Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > >Michael, I'm sorry, I should go back and search the thread for the
> > >answer, but don't have time right now - do you really need
> > >disablenetwork to be available to unprivileged users?
> >
> > Rainbow can only drop the networking privileges when we know at app launch time
> > (e.g. based on a manifest or from the human operator) that privileges can be
> > dropped. Unfortunately, most of the really interesting uses of disablenetwork
> > happen *after* rainbow has dropped privilege and handed control the app.
> > Therefore, having an API which can be used by at least some low-privilege
> > processes is important to me.
> >
> > >is it ok to require CAP_SETPCAP (same thing required for dropping privs from
> > >bounding set)?
> >
> > Let me try to restate your idea:
> >
> > We can make disablenetwork safer by permitting its use only where explicitly
> > permitted by some previously privileged ancestor. The securebits facility
> > described in
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/280279/
> >
> > may be a good framework in which to implement this control.
> >
> > Did I understand correctly? If so, then yes, this approach seems like it would
> > work for me.
>
> That is a little more than I was saying this time though I think I
> suggested it earlier.
>
> But really I don't think anyone would care to separate a system into
> some processes allowed to do unprivileged disablenetwork and other
> processes not allowed to, so a (root-owned mode 644) sysctl seems just
> as useful.
Global solution like that is always wrong. (And we have better
solution available.)
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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