linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys

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: <CAGTjWtD+5cZxQiE+tikUyz2SNgm3bR95GE2veevEv15cPX1E9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:48:48 -0700
From:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow disabling of sys_iopl, sys_ioperm

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> In my case, I simply don't want these "features", which is why I took
>> the compile time approach to turning this stuff off.  I realize that
>> these syscalls (and the /dev/port interface) are not comprehensive (I
>> didn't say they were either).  I'm happy though to take suggestions
>
> Indeed - but from the point of view of doing the job to a standard for
> an upstream kernel there ought to be a meaningful testable definition of
> what the security shift you achieve is.
>
>> for stuff I probably should be disabling considering my goal of making
>> it difficult for root to compromise a system.  And yes, modules are
>> disabled :)
>
> If you have CAP_SYS_RAWIO and some of the other interfaces you only think
> it is - the kiddies toolkits already include out of the box direct module
> loading hacks (in fact its fairly easy if you've got GPU PCI access to
> just put the module into video memory so that only the patching needs to
> be done and the module internal addresses are all fixed and can be
> arranged on a suitably convenient target address)
>
> So really there needs to be a definition of what you are trying to
> achieve. My own guess is that for
>
>        "Disallow direct access paths to hardware"
>
> the actual answer is 'revoke RAWIO' and then give it back to very
> specific selected code in very specific selected ways or possibly in some
> cases where rawio is needed for stuff that shouldn't be by writing new
> driver bits to provide the proper interface that we are lacking ?
>
> So lets turn the question around a moment - what breaks if you simply
> take CAP_SYS_RAWIO away from everything ?
>

Alright, I see your point.   ISTR that CAP_SYS_RAWIO was required for
accessing block devices directly, but this doesn't seem to be the
case.

I think the approach I'll try next is to try and drop it with
PR_CAPBSET_DROP from early userspace's init.

Any other vectors you would suggest to keep the kiddies away?
--
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/