linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Introduce CAP_CHECKPOINT capability and filter map

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:54:14 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Cc:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce CAP_CHECKPOINT capability and filter map_files/
 access

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:41:05 -0600
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com> wrote:

> >  - (not yet merged) clone-with-specified-pid, might be changed to last_pid+clone setup
> >  - (not yet published/stabilized) prctls calls to tune up vDSO and elements
> >    of mm_struct such as mm->start_code, mm->end_code, mm->start_data and etc
> > 
> > I would like to gather people opinions on such approach as a general.
> > _ANY_ comments are highly appreciated. Would it worth it or not (since
> > CAPs space is pretty limited one).
> 
> It's hard to have a specific dialogue without the full c/r patchset and
> idea of the architecture of the exploiters (ie c/r and maybe
> debuggers)
> 
> Sorry, the security implications of the in-kernel c/r syscalls were
> pretty simple and clear to me, but those of the new approach are not.

yup.

>From a development-order perspective perhaps it is better to get
everything working and stabilized for root first.  Then as a separate
activity start working on making it available to less-privileged users.

We would need to be confident that such a second development effort
doesn't cause back-compatibility issues (ie: interface changes) for
existing root users.



Is it possible that once everything is working for root, we realise
that we can get it all working for non-root users via suitable setuid
userspace tools?
--
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/