lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-27 09:41    [W:0.199 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site