linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from granting privs

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: <1326485605.4342.19.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:13:25 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.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, djm@...drot.org, segoon@...nwall.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, 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,
	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, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from
 granting privs

On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 11:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >
> > Is the current exec_no_trans check enough for you?  With my patch,
> > selinux can already block the execve if it wants.
> 
> If this feature has "selinux can do xyz if it wants", it is broken.
> 
> The *whole* point is to get the f*^%ing crazy "security managers can
> do xyz" things away from it.
> 
> The flag - when set - should give a 100% guarantee that security
> context doesn't change, and an operation that would change it would
> error out.

That's what you would get today following the MNT_NOSUID example.
SELinux just has the additional property that the policy can either
error (and fail the exec) or allow no selinux transition to happen.  

> Not a "selinux can block it if it wants". None of that "wants" crap.
> None of the "you can configure security rules to do xyz" crap.
> 
> One simple rule: no security changes from the context that set the flag.
> 
> Any other rule will inevitably cause random gray areas where some
> random security manager does something stupid. We have enough of those
> already. No more.

So you can't drop capabilities(7)?  If you come in with permission you
can't get rid of it?  Ouch.

My thought on expanding the SELinux support beyond 'no
transition' (which I suggest we do today) would be that we might allow
SELinux transitions if we can show the the 'child' domain is a subset of
the 'parent' domain. Much the same as I imagine you can still drop
capabilities after setting this flag you might be able to drop SELinux
permissions, but that's something that would need a lot of thought and
that we don't have a good way to do today...

--
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/