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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:57:20 -0800 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.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, 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 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes: > 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. Foolish implementation question. Is there a reason why we are putting this in a new field in the task struct instead of adding a new flag in securebits in struct cred? It seems to me like putting this information on the task_struct instead of struct cred will tend to make this frozen state transition less discoverable for future developers. Also I would expect if you were applying this policy that you would to ensure that task->read_cred == task->cred. Do we want to disable setuid() and it's friends as well? Certainly freezing everything at exec is good I'm just wondering if handling the handful of other cases where we explicitly change the permissions on a process might be interesting. My gut says you are trying to implement SECURE_NO_CHANGEPRIVS. Eric -- 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