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  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]
Date:	Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:57:20 -0800
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:	Will Drewry <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, luto@....EDU,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from granting privs

Andy Lutomirski <> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists