linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrV7S0dLkNWMSYsL7MFuLgdpQwUEAjW6zTwRE8uhh_AuBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:53:47 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@...il.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> wrote:
> Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@...capital.net):
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> wrote:
>> > Quoting Christoph Lameter (cl@...ux.com):
>> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > I'll submit a new version this week with the securebits.  Sorry for the delay.
>> >>  > Are we going to get a new version?
>> >>
>> >> Replying to my own here. Cant we simply use the SETPCAP approach as per
>> >> the patch I posted?
>> >
>> > Andy had objections to that, but it seems ok to me.
>> >
>>
>> I object because CAP_SETPCAP is very powerful whereas
>> CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, for example, isn't.  I'm fine with having a
>> switch to turn off ambient caps, but requiring the "on" state to give
>
> Would only really be needed for the initial 'enable ambient caps for this
> process tree', though.  Once that was set, add/remove'ing caps from the
> ambient set wouldn't need to be required.

That's sort of what my patch does -- you need CAP_SETPCAP to switch
the securebit.

But Christoph's patch required it to add caps to the ambient set, right?

--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/