[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX6vf7cKy=XDhDtn9hn1W930MRxBa=pk93RnyuZ-EaNyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:28:25 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>,
Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
simon.mcvittie@...labora.co.uk, daniel@...que.org,
alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk, javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk,
Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > * Attachment of trustable metadata to each message on demand, such as
>> > the sending peer's timestamp, creds, auxgroups, comm, exe, cmdline,
>> > cgroup path, capabilities, security label, audit information, etc,
>> > each taken at the time the sender issued the ioctl to send the
>> > message. Which of those are actually recorded and attached is
>> > controlled by the receiving peer.
>>
>> I think that each piece of trustable metadata needs to be explicitly
>> opted-in to by the sender at the time of capture. Otherwise you're
>> asking for lots of information leaks and privilege escalations. This
>> is especially important given that some of the items in the current
>> list could be rather sensitive.
>
> You do have to opt-in for this information at time of capture, so I
> don't understand the issue here. This is the same type of thing that
> dbus does today, and I don't see the information leaks happening there,
> do you?
>
The docs suggest that the *receiver* opts in.
I don't think that current dbus has severe information leaks because
the total scope for information transparently sent to dbus is rather
small (struct ucred only, presumably).
--Andy
--
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