linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation/admin-guide: introduce perf-security.rst file

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: <20181125124732.6c1807de@lwn.net>
Date:   Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:47:32 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation/admin-guide: introduce
 perf-security.rst file

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:14:14 +0300
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> +For the purpose of performing security checks Linux implementation splits
> +processes into two categories [6]_ : a) privileged processes (whose effective
> +user ID is 0, referred to as superuser or root), and b) unprivileged processes
> +(whose effective UID is nonzero).

Is that really what's going on here?  If I understand things correctly,
it's looking for CAP_SYS_PTRACE rather than a specific UID; am I missing
something here?

(Also, you would want "*the* Linux implementation" in the first sentence
above).

One other thing:

> +(whose effective UID is nonzero). Privileged processes bypass all kernel
> +security permission checks so perf_events performance monitoring is fully
> +available to privileged processes without *access*, *scope* and *resource*
> +restrictions.

Could I ask for a slight toning down of the markup here?  There's a lot of
*emphasis* here that isn't really needed and tends to get in the way.

Thanks,

jon