linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] kernel: Conditionally support non-root users, groups and capabilities

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

Message-ID: <CAN6A1tcjqWV0BgbtHDHHeAzL7+vHuDCKo6Y1_KYMzWB3i5siqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:09:33 +0200
From:	Iulia Manda <iulia.manda21@...il.com>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel: Conditionally support non-root users, groups
 and capabilities

On 10 February 2015 at 02:33, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 03:42:08PM -0800, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 10:05:25AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > Thanks for the update!
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>>

See below. :)

>> Thanks, Geert!
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 08:02:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > I presume that v4 will have your Signed-off-by.  ;-)
>> >
>> > Testing on my rcutorture setup uncovered an additional required dependency,
>> > please see patch at the end of this email.  With that fix, either separately
>> > or merged into your patch:
>> >
>> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >
>> > One question below about moving the definition of capable().  Either way:
>>
>> Answer below.
>
> And that answer makes sense to me!  Might be worth a mention in the
> commit log (my apologies if it was mentioned and I missed it).
>
>> > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul!
>>
>> Based on this feedback, as well as the feedback from others on prior
>> versions that has since been addressed, once there's a v4 with the
>> changes suggested by Paul (and the signoff and acks/reviews added), I'm
>> going to let this patch start cooking in linux-next (after the currently
>> active merge window closes, of course).  That'll help shake out any
>> other potential missing dependencies or merge issues, and leave plenty
>> of time for people to discuss it further before the subsequent merge
>> window.
>

Thank you for the feedback and review!

> Makes sense to me!  (/me suddenly remembers to take his post-merge-window
> commits out of -next...)
>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
>> > > --- a/kernel/capability.c
>> > > +++ b/kernel/capability.c
>> > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static int __init file_caps_disable(char *str)
>> > >  }
>> > >  __setup("no_file_caps", file_caps_disable);
>> > >
>> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIUSER
>> > >  /*
>> > >   * More recent versions of libcap are available from:
>> > >   *
>> > > @@ -386,6 +387,24 @@ bool ns_capable(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
>> > >  }
>> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ns_capable);
>> > >
>> > > +
>> > > +/**
>> > > + * capable - Determine if the current task has a superior capability in effect
>> > > + * @cap: The capability to be tested for
>> > > + *
>> > > + * Return true if the current task has the given superior capability currently
>> > > + * available for use, false if not.
>> > > + *
>> > > + * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
>> > > + * assumption that it's about to be used.
>> > > + */
>> > > +bool capable(int cap)
>> > > +{
>> > > + return ns_capable(&init_user_ns, cap);
>> > > +}
>> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(capable);
>> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIUSER */
>> > > +
>> > >  /**
>> > >   * file_ns_capable - Determine if the file's opener had a capability in effect
>> > >   * @file:  The file we want to check
>> > > @@ -412,22 +431,6 @@ bool file_ns_capable(const struct file *file, struct user_namespace *ns,
>> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(file_ns_capable);
>> > >
>> > >  /**
>> > > - * capable - Determine if the current task has a superior capability in effect
>> > > - * @cap: The capability to be tested for
>> > > - *
>> > > - * Return true if the current task has the given superior capability currently
>> > > - * available for use, false if not.
>> > > - *
>> > > - * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
>> > > - * assumption that it's about to be used.
>> > > - */
>> > > -bool capable(int cap)
>> > > -{
>> > > - return ns_capable(&init_user_ns, cap);
>> > > -}
>> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(capable);
>> > > -
>> > > -/**
>> >
>> > OK, I'll bite...  Why are we moving capable()?
>>
>> Consolidating from two ifdef blocks to one, based on feedback on the
>> initial version suggesting simplification of the ifdeffery.
>>
>> - Josh Triplett
>>
>
--
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/