netdev - Re: fanotify as syscalls

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: <200909230939.34003.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:39:33 +0100
From:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 17:04:44 Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > The fatal flaw of syscall interception is race conditions: you look up a
> > pathname in your interception layer; then when you call into the proper
> > syscall, the kernel again looks up the same pathname. There is no way to
> > guarantee that you end up at the same object in both lookups. The
> > security and fsnotify hooks are placed in the appropriate spots to avoid
> > exactly that.
>
> Fatal? You mean, for this corner case that the anti-malware industry lived
> with for so much time (in Linux and Windows), you're prepared in pushing
> all the logic that is currently implemented into their modules, into the
> kernel?

Lived with it because there was no other option. We used LSM while it was 
available for modules but then it was taken away. 

And not all vendors even use syscall interception, not even across platforms, 
of which you sound so sure about. You can't even scan something which is not 
in your namespace if you are at the syscall level. And you can't catch things 
like kernel nfsd. No, syscall interception is not really appropriate at all.

Tvrtko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html