[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180103140808.0215ac87@tomh>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:08:08 -0500
From: Tom Horsley <horsley1953@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Weaken dumpability for secureexec
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:21:16 -0800
Kees Cook wrote:
> The more interesting thing here is that secureexec is set for a
> process that ISN'T actually setuid. (ptrace of a setuid process). I
> think tha'ts the real bug, but not something I'm going to be able to
> fix quickly. So, for now, I want to revert this, then try to fix the
> weird case, and see if that breaks anyone, then fix this back to
> secureexec.
Certainly a program file that has capabilities attached to it
via "setcap" is intended to be treated just like setuid if
the capabilities it has are a superset of the capabilities
of the debugger. (I don't know if that is a useful info in this
case, but I thought I'd mention it :-).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists