[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
    "Serge E. Hallyn" <> writes:

    > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (
    >> "Serge E. Hallyn" <> writes:
    >> >> In common cap we drop the new capabilities if we are being ptraced.
    >> >> Look for brm->unsafe.
    >> >
    >> > Yes - that isn't the issue.
    >> Right. Sorry. I saw that we set unsafe and totally
    >> missed that we don't act on it in that case.
    >> > It goes back to finding a way to figure out what is inside the
    >> > file when the installer obviously thought we shouldn't be able
    >> > to read the file.
    >> >
    >> > Do we care? <shrug>
    >> <shrug>
    >> I expect two lines of testing bprm->unsafe and failing
    >> at the right point would solve that.
    > But what is the right response? Prevent excecution? Stop the
    > tracer? Enter some one-shot mode where the whole exec appears
    > as one step, but tracing continues if execution continues on a
    > dumpable file?

    The whole exec should already appear as one step.

    The right response is to either fail the exec or disable
    the tracer. Since the other case drops privs. I expect
    failing the exec is the simplest and most consistent thing
    we can do.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-30 22:15    [W:0.022 / U:53.964 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site