netdev - Re: [PATCH] don't allow CAP_NET_ADMIN to load non-netdev kernel modules

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]

Date:	Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:07:59 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	segoon@...nwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com,
	xiaosuo@...il.com, jesse@...ira.com, kees.cook@...onical.com,
	eugene@...hat.com, dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't allow CAP_NET_ADMIN to load non-netdev kernel
 modules

On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 11:05 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:02:05 +0300
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:47 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:14:14 +0300
> >> 
> >> > Since a8f80e8ff94ecba629542d9b4b5f5a8ee3eb565c any process with
> >> > CAP_NET_ADMIN may load any module from /lib/modules/.  This doesn't mean
> >> > that CAP_NET_ADMIN is a superset of CAP_SYS_MODULE as modules are limited
> >> > to /lib/modules/**.  However, CAP_NET_ADMIN capability shouldn't allow
> >> > anybody load any module not related to networking.
> >> 
> >> Why go through this naming change, which does break things, instead of
> >> simply adding a capability mask tag or similar to modules somehow.  You
> >> could stick it into a special elf section or similar.
> >>
> >> Doesn't that make tons more sense than this?
> > 
> > This is not "simply", adding special section for a single workaround
> > seems like an overkill for me - this touches the core (modules'
> > internals), which is not related to the initial CAP_* problem at all.
> > 
> > I'd be happy with not breaking anything, but I don't see any acceptable
> > solution.
> 
> I think it's warranted given that it allows us to avoid breaking things.
> 
> I don't understand there is resistence in response to the first idea
> I've seen proprosed that actually allows to fix the problem and not
> break anything at the same time.
> 
> That seems silly.

You realise that module loading doesn't actually run in the context of
request_module(), right?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
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