lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] Security: Implement disablenetwork semantics. (v4)
Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Michael, I'm sorry, I should go back and search the thread for the
> answer, but don't have time right now - do you really need
> disablenetwork to be available to unprivileged users?

Rainbow can only drop the networking privileges when we know at app launch time
(e.g. based on a manifest or from the human operator) that privileges can be
dropped. Unfortunately, most of the really interesting uses of disablenetwork
happen *after* rainbow has dropped privilege and handed control the app.
Therefore, having an API which can be used by at least some low-privilege
processes is important to me.

> is it ok to require CAP_SETPCAP (same thing required for dropping privs from
> bounding set)?

Let me try to restate your idea:

We can make disablenetwork safer by permitting its use only where explicitly
permitted by some previously privileged ancestor. The securebits facility
described in

http://lwn.net/Articles/280279/

may be a good framework in which to implement this control.

Did I understand correctly? If so, then yes, this approach seems like it would
work for me.

Regards, and thanks very much for your help,

Michael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-12 07:11    [W:0.225 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site