linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1] security: introduce ptrace_task_access

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: <20110617155058.GB22588@albatros>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:50:58 +0400
From:	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com,
	"selinux@...ho.nsa.gov Stephen Smalley" <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] security: introduce ptrace_task_access_check()

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> >Please help me to figure out how such patch should be divided to be
> >applied.  I think about such scheme:
> >
> >1) add generic security/* functions.
> >2-4) add ptrace_task_access_check() for SMACK, AppArmor and SELinux.
> >5) change ptrace_access_check() in security ops and all LSMs to
> >     ptrace_task_access_check().
> >
> >But I'd like to hear maintainers' oppinions not to put useless efforts.
> 
> Not a real review, but I didn't instantly grok the need for the new
> cap functions.

It is needed because of capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) and similar inside of
ptrace_may_access() implementations.

>  So maybe that's it's own patch with it's own change
> log.  After that you should just add the 'parent' task to
> ptrace_access_check() and fix all of the LSMs to handle the new
> semantics at once.  No need to rename the function or do a bunch of
> seperate patchs.

I thought it would represent function's semantic changes more strongly.

>  All of us LSM authors can just ACK our little part
> and James can take the patch when everyone has their say.  I think
> that will make history the cleanest.....

Great!  It would be much simple for me too :)

Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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/