[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100314053521.GA12410@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:35:21 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SELinux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ch.ncsc.mil>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
"Christopher J. PeBenito" <cpebenito@...sys.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define CAP_SYSLOG
Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@...glemail.com):
> > There is one downside to this patch: If some site or distro currently
> > has syslogd/whatever running as a non-root user with cap_sys_admin+pe,
> > then it will need to be changed to run with cap_syslog+pe. I don't
> > know if there are such sites, or if that concern means we should take
> > a different approach to introducing this change, or simply refuse this
> > change.
>
> *If* this is a problem, would the way to address it not be to permit
> syslog if the caller has *either* CAP_SYS_ADMIN or CAP_SYSLOG? (The
> only weakness I see in this idea is that it fails to lighten the
> hugely overlaoded CAP_SYS_ADMIN.)
Which becomes a very big weakness because it won't allow a
container to be started with cap_sys_admin but not cap_syslog
in its capability bounding set.
So, if it is deemed a problem, then the alternative will be to
introduce a syslog namespace. Container setup can then create
a new syslog namespace, and can no longer read or clear the
host's syslog.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists