[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zku8839xgFRAEcl+@tycho.pizza>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 15:13:23 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Jonathan Calmels <jcalmels@...0.net>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] capabilities: add cap userns sysctl mask
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:25:27PM -0700, Jonathan Calmels wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:30:14AM GMT, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > there is an ongoing effort (started at [0]) to constify the first arg
> > here, since you're not supposed to write to it. Your usage looks
> > correct to me, so I think all it needs is a literal "const" here.
>
> Will do, along with the suggestions from Jarkko
>
> > > + struct ctl_table t;
> > > + unsigned long mask_array[2];
> > > + kernel_cap_t new_mask, *mask;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + if (write && (!capable(CAP_SETPCAP) ||
> > > + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)))
> > > + return -EPERM;
> >
> > ...why CAP_SYS_ADMIN? You mention it in the changelog, but don't
> > explain why.
>
> No reason really, I was hoping we could decide what we want here.
> UMH uses CAP_SYS_MODULE, Serge mentioned adding a new cap maybe.
I don't have a strong preference between SETPCAP and a new capability,
but I do think it should be just one. SYS_ADMIN is already god mode
enough, IMO.
Tycho
Powered by blists - more mailing lists