linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/12] x86: Require CAP_COMPROMISE

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2ad7xmbpwcl9vgjowbcqr2uu.1363741519451@email.android.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:05:23 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] x86: Require CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL for IO port
 access

Easiest way to do that would be to replace some existing users of CAP_RAW_IO with CAP_SYS_ADMIN and then just insert a couple of extra RAW_IO checks. That would break some existing userspace, but so would introducing a new capability. I'm happy to go that way, but would appreciate some broader feedback that that's the way to go. 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | matthew.garrett@...ula.com