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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:59:02 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     tyhicks@...onical.com, serge.hallyn@...ntu.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Use ns_capable_noaudit() when determining net
 sysctl permissions

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 03:25:04AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:24:31 -0700
> 
> > From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
> > 
> > The capability check should not be audited since it is only being used
> > to determine the inode permissions. A failed check does not indicate a
> > violation of security policy but, when an LSM is enabled, a denial audit
> > message was being generated.
> > 
> > The denial audit message caused confusion for some application authors
> > because root-running Go applications always triggered the denial. To
> > prevent this confusion, the capability check in net_ctl_permissions() is
> > switched to the noaudit variant.
> > 
> > BugLink: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465724
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
> > Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
> > [dtor: reapplied after e79c6a4fc923 ("net: make net namespace sysctls
> > belong to container's owner") accidentally reverted the change.]
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> 
> Applied, but please be clear in the future what tree a patch
> is targetting, in this case 'net-next'.
> 
> You can indicate this in the Subject line "[PATCH net-next]".

Sorry, will do next time.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists