linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] PR_SET_NO_NEW

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: <CALCETrW3WyzaGBMJZzfohD=MRwdmeV9bAo4Leg1gaSnPL5URpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:25:42 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
Cc:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	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, 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, 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 v2 0/4] PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, unshare, and chroot

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 16:37 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> To make the no_new_privs discussion more concrete, here is an updated
>> series that is actually useful.  It adds PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS
>
> I think it'd be clearer to call it PR_SET_NOSUID - basically it should
> match the semantics for MS_NOSUID mounts, as if on every exec()
> thereafter the target binary was on a nosuid filesystem.

The MS_NOSUID semantics are somewhat ridiculous for selinux, and I'd
rather not make them match for no_new_privs.  AppArmor completely
ignores MS_NOSUID, so I think the rename would just cause more
confusion.

>
> You might then change this flag to only take effect on a later exec(),
> which would solve your race condition for the hypothetical PAM module.

That would just make it more complicated.  The race is already solved
in the current patch, anyway.

>
>>  with the
>> same semantics as before (plus John Johansen's AppArmor fix and with
>> improved bisectability).  It then allows some unshare flags
>
> What's the rationale behind the unshare subset?  Did you actually
> analyze any setuid binaries found on Debian/Fedora etc. and determined
> that e.g. CLONE_NEWNET was problematic for some reason?

CLONE_NEWNET seems more likely to consume significant kernel resources
than the others.  I didn't have a great reason, though.  Unsharing the
filesystem namespace is possibly dangerous because it could prevent an
unmount in the original namespace from taking effect everywhere.

>
> I actually want CLONE_NEWNET for my build tool, so I can be sure the
> arbitrary code I'm executing as part of the build at least isn't
> downloading more new code.
>
>

Fair enough.  I may add this in v3.  seccomp is an even better
solution, though :)

--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/