linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/18] Secure boot: Add new capability

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: <20130825161428.GE5171@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date:	Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:14:28 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	opensuse-kernel@...nsuse.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, JKosina@...e.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] Secure boot: Add new capability

On Thu 2013-08-22 19:01:47, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
> 
> Secure boot adds certain policy requirements, including that root must not
> be able to do anything that could cause the kernel to execute arbitrary code.
> The simplest way to handle this would seem to be to add a new capability
> and gate various functionality on that. We'll then strip it from the initial
> capability set if required.

There was some discussion about this before, right? And I don't think
conclusion was it was acceptable...?

> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/capability.h |    6 +++++-
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> index ba478fa..7109e65 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> @@ -343,7 +343,11 @@ struct vfs_cap_data {
>  
>  #define CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND    36
>  
> -#define CAP_LAST_CAP         CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND
> +/* Allow things that trivially permit root to modify the running kernel */
> +
> +#define CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL  37
> +
> +#define CAP_LAST_CAP         CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL
>  
>  #define cap_valid(x) ((x) >= 0 && (x) <= CAP_LAST_CAP)
>  

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/