linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ptrace: allow restriction of ptrace scope

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100618175829.GI24749@outflux.net>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:58:29 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: allow restriction of ptrace scope

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:30:54PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> - You can give up now.

Failure is always an option!  :)  Nah, I was never deluded into thinking
these patches were going to be universally-loved and easy to upstream.
I posted them because I want them in, and I'm going to stick with it.

> - You can put it together as a security module - which will make people
>   happy and get your stuff upstream. After that you can have a meaningful
>   discussion about stacking, although I think you'll find that stacking
>   is really really hard because you get conflicting behaviour between
>   security modules and ignoring those conflicts ends up violating at least
>   one of the security models leaving you worse not better off.
> 
> Your path to making any of the stuff you want happen is via the security
> layer and the LSM hooks. Even if you want them stackable and usable with
> other modules your starting point is still a security module.

Sounds like this really is the only path, with the idea of finding a
chaining solution later.  Without chaining, it's only useful for people
that aren't using a full MAC.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
--
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/