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  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]
Date:   Sun, 5 Jul 2020 11:11:47 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <>
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <>,, LKML <>,,,, Ondrej Mosnacek <>,,,
        Eric Paris <>,
        Serge Hallyn <>,,, Dan Walsh <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V9 13/13] audit: add capcontid to set contid
 outside init_user_ns

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:24 AM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:
> Provide a mechanism similar to CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL to explicitly give a
> process in a non-init user namespace the capability to set audit
> container identifiers of individual children.
> Provide the /proc/$PID/audit_capcontid interface to capcontid.
> Valid values are: 1==enabled, 0==disabled
> Writing a "1" to this special file for the target process $PID will
> enable the target process to set audit container identifiers of its
> descendants.
> A process must already have CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL in the initial user
> namespace or have had audit_capcontid enabled by a previous use of this
> feature by its parent on this process in order to be able to enable it
> for another process.  The target process must be a descendant of the
> calling process.
> Report this action in new message type AUDIT_SET_CAPCONTID 1022 with
> fields opid= capcontid= old-capcontid=
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <>
> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c             | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/linux/audit.h      | 14 ++++++++++++
>  include/uapi/linux/audit.h |  1 +
>  kernel/audit.c             | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  4 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

This seems very similar to the capable/ns_capable combination I
mentioned in patch 11/13; any reasons why you feel that this might be
a better approach?  My current thinking is that the capable/ns_capable
approach is preferable as it leverages existing kernel mechanisms and
doesn't require us to reinvent the wheel in the audit subsystem.

paul moore

Powered by blists - more mailing lists