[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87egsxnbth.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:14:50 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add supplementary UIDs, and getusers/setusers system calls
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> writes:
> Analogous to the supplementary GID list, the supplementary UID list
> provides a set of additional user credentials that a process can act as.
> A process with CAP_SETUID can set its UID list arbitrarily; a process
> without CAP_SETUID can only reduce its UID list.
>
> This allows each user to have a set of UIDs that they can then use to
> further sandbox individual child processes without first escalating to
> root to change UIDs. For instance, a PAM module could give each user a
> block of UIDs to work with.
A couple of quick comments on this patch.
1) user namespaces already allow you to do this.
2) After having looked at the group case I am afraid this intersects in
an unfortunate way with user namespaces.
3) This intersects in a very unfortunate way with setresuid.
Applications that today know they are dropping all privileges
won't be dropping all privielges with this change. Which sounds like
a recipe for a security exploit to me.
Eric
--
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