linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering

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: <BANLkTimNcag-ZmVTXjUoTyiuJm6jtW0DgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2011 13:49:01 -0500
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> One option is to just not ever allow execve() from inside a restricted
>>> environment.
>>
>> That'd certainly be fine with me.
>
> So if it ends up being purely a "internal to the process" thing, then
> I'm much happier about it - it not only limits the scope of things
> sufficiently that I don't worry too much about security issues, but it
> makes it very clear that it's about a process going into "lock-down"
> mode on its own.
>
> It also gets rid of all configuration - one of the things that makes
> most security frameworks (look at selinux, but also just ACL's etc)
> such a crazy rats nest is the whole "set up for other processes". If
> it's designed very much to be about just the "self" process (after
> initialization etc), then I think that avoids pretty much all the
> serious issues.
>
> A lot of server processes could probably use it as a way to say "Hey,
> I guarantee that I will only open new files read-only, and will only
> write to the socket that was already opened for me by the accept", and
> explicitly limit their worker threads that way.
>
> If that is really sufficient for some chrome sandboxing, then hey,
> that's all fine.

It adds some hoops, but less than exist today.

> Sometimes limiting yourself (rather than looking for some bigger
> "generic" solution) is the right answer.

I will very happily validate usage and repost with a self-limited
patch series.  Doing so makes the change much more explicitly an
expansion of seccomp, which keeps things sane.

Thanks!
will
--
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/