[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJuzjo0bLGcxDgyp6Uj=uJj02BL5Jr+e1WeqUwc18Oe-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:44:38 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] security: Yama LSM
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com> wrote:
>> Do you have any objection to my LSM performing ptrace restrictions?
>> It's entirely self-contained, and all the major upstream crash
>> handlers are already using the prctl() interface it uses to declare
>> ptrace attach relationships.
>
> I don't have the context of what your LSM does. But other LSMs apply their
> own rules in security_ptrace(). That's what the hook is for. I'm not sure
> why we would object from the perspective of core ptrace functionality.
> LSMs are LSMs. Their behavior is between you and your users, as far as I
> am concerned. As experts on ptrace and aficionados of its users, we may
> have thoughts on what constraints on ptrace users would find annoying.
> But that doesn't mean we'd object per se to whatever bizarre constraints
> users want to ask an LSM to put on them.
Yup, that's precisely what Yama does as well. Sounds like you're not
naking an LSM that uses security_ptrace(), then.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists