[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVBJFgKwRKBE2jAG6kiGgkJ+MyQiw2nyz5yj0h68kCk9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:35:17 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lpoetter@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kay@...hat.com,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PASSCGROUP to enable passing cgroup path
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 10:26 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Not really. write(2) can't send SCM_CGROUP. Callers of sendmsg(2)
>> who supply SCM_CGROUP are explicitly indicating that they want their
>> cgroup associated with that message. Callers of write(2) and send(2)
>> are simply indicating that they have some bytes that they want to
>> shove into whatever's at the other end of the fd.
>
> But there is no attack vector that passes by tricking setuid binaries to
> write to pre-opened file descriptors on sendmsg(), and for the other
> cases (connected socket) journald can always cross check with
> SO_PEERCGROUP, so why do we care again ?
Because the proposed code does not do what I described, at least as
far I as I can tell.
--Andy
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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