linux-kernel - Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181001224528.GI18567@dastard>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 08:45:28 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        TongZhang <ztong@...edu>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Wenbo Shen <shenwenbosmile@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Leaking Path in XFS's ioctl interface(missing LSM check)

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 06:08:16AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> > If we /did/ replace CAP_SYS_ADMIN checking with a pile of LSM hooks,
> 
> Not sure we'd need a pile of hooks, what about just "read" and "write" 
> storage admin?
> 
> Or even two new capabilities along these lines, which we convert existing 
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN etc. to?

So instead of having hundreds of management ioctls under
CAP_SYS_ADMIN, we'd now have hundreds of non-storage ioctls under
CAP_SYS_ADMIN and hundreds of storage ioctls under
CAP_SYS_STORAGE_ADMIN?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that improves the
situation w.r.t. locked down LSM configurations?

Cheers,

Dave.


-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com