linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF

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: <CABqD9hYynwP6ViTZi_7XH7OWbZ7SHskU9W6roX2yD5rwqBO96Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:40:23 -0600
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	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, segoon@...nwall.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	scarybeasts@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 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 12:44 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like this?
>>>
>>> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1003.3/01225.html
>>
>> I don't know the execve_nosecurity patches, so the diff makes little
>> sense to me, but yeah, I wouldn't expect it to be more than a couple
>> of lines. Exactly *how* you set the bit etc is not something I care
>> deeply about, prctl seems about as good as anything.
>>
>>> Note that there's a huge can of worms if execve is allowed but
>>> suid/sgid is not: selinux may elevate privileges on exec of pretty
>>> much anything.  (I think that this is a really awful idea, but it's in
>>> the kernel, so we're stuck with it.)
>>
>> You can do any amount of crazy things with selinux, but the other side
>> of the coin is that it would also be trivial to teach selinux about
>> this same "restricted environment" bit, and just say that a process
>> with that bit set doesn't get to match whatever selinux privilege
>> escalation rules..
>>
>> I really don't think this is just about "execve cannot do setuid". I
>> think it's about the process being marked as restricted.
>>
>> So in your patch, I think that "PR_RESTRICT_EXEC" bit is wrong. It
>> should simply be "PR_RESTRICT_ME", and be done with it, and not try to
>> artificially limit it to be some "execve feature", and more think of
>> it as a "this is a process that has *no* extra privileges at all, and
>> can never get them".
>
> Fair enough.  I'll submit the simpler patch tonight.

This sounds cool.  Do you think you'll go for a new task_struct member
or will it a securebit?  (Seems like securebits might be too tied to
posix file caps, but I figured I'd ask).

I'm planning on going ahead and mocking up your potential patch so I
can respin this series using it and make sure I understand the
interactions.

thanks!
will
--
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/