[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hbOUy1qO0f+JFitRXH6c5EgLTWOh5eGdo8dTxeXJ40h2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:59:15 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
john.johansen@...onical.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com,
djm@...drot.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
segoon@...nwall.com, jmorris@...ei.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
luto@....edu, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
khilman@...com, borislav.petkov@....com, amwang@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
gregkh@...e.de, dhowells@...hat.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 11:25 -0600, Will Drewry wrote:
>
>> Filter programs may _only_ cross the execve(2) barrier if last filter
>> program was attached by a task with CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities in its
>> user namespace. Once a task-local filter program is attached from a
>> process without privileges, execve will fail. This ensures that only
>> privileged parent task can affect its privileged children (e.g., setuid
>> binary).
>
> This means that a non privileged user can not run another program with
> limited features? How would a process exec another program and filter
> it? I would assume that the filter would need to be attached first and
> then the execv() would be performed. But after the filter is attached,
> the execv is prevented?
Yeah - it means tasks can filter themselves, but not each other.
However, you can inject a filter for any dynamically linked executable
using LD_PRELOAD.
> Maybe I don't understand this correctly.
You're right on. This was to ensure that one process didn't cause
crazy behavior in another. I think Alan has a better proposal than
mine below. (Goes back to catching up.)
--
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