[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVCv=v2Ria4u3xDQYcv881_-X1aZwH0y-rkZjhGRddKOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:02:51 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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, 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, 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, corbet@....net,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from
granting privs
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> With this set, a lot of dangerous operations (chroot, unshare, etc)
>> become a lot less dangerous because there is no possibility of
>> subverting privileged binaries.
>>
>> This patch completely breaks apparmor. Someone who understands (and
>> uses) apparmor should fix it or at least give me a hint.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> [....]
>> diff --git a/security/apparmor/domain.c b/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> index c1e18ba..7f480b7 100644
>> --- a/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> +++ b/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> @@ -360,6 +360,9 @@ int apparmor_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>> if (bprm->cred_prepared)
>> return 0;
>>
>> + /* XXX: someone who understands apparmor needs to fix this. */
>> + BUG_ON(bprm->unsafe & LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS);
>> +
>> cxt = bprm->cred->security;
>> BUG_ON(!cxt);
>>
>
> Since apparmor_bprm_set_creds() calls cap_bprm_set_creds() already[1],
> I think AppArmor needs no changes at all, but John will know better.
> :)
I think that AppArmor determines what a program is allowed to do by
looking at the path of the executable. We don't want newly-executed
programs to gain permissions because they're a different executable
when we're in no_new_privs mode, so (if I'm right) something different
needs to happen.
--Andy
--
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