Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:57 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4) |
| |
On Sun 2009-12-27 17:36:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michael Stone wrote: > > Further suggestions? > > I expect that the future figure of this "disablenetwork" functionality becomes > "disablesyscall" functionality. > > What about defining two types of masks, one is applied throughout the rest of > the task_struct's lifetime (inheritable mask), the other is cleared when > execve() succeeds (local mask)? > > When an application is sure that "I know I don't need to call execve()" or > "I know execve()d programs need not to call ...()" or "I want execve()d > programs not to call ...()", the application sets inheritable mask. > When an application is not sure about what syscalls the execve()d programs > will call but is sure that "I know I don't need to call ...()", the application > sets local mask.
Syscalls are very wrong granularity for security system. But easy to implement, see seccomp. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |