lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [rfc] fcntl: Add F_GETOWNER_UIDS option
From
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Cyrill Gorcunov (gorcunov@openvz.org):
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 09:12:19AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I wanna take a look on Eric's set first just to get right
>> > > "picture" of everything. And I wanted to find a minimal solution
>> > > with current kernel code base which could be extended in future.
>> > >
>> > > That said I guess the current init-ns-only approach should do the
>> > > trick for a while. And (thanks for pointing) I need to add a test
>> > > if a caller which tries to obtain uids has enought credentials
>> > > for that (probably CAP_FOWNER), right?
>> >
>> > Sorry, I'm not sure which caller you mean.  Neither f_setown nor
>> > f_getown require privilege right now.  Oh, you mean at restart?
>>
>> I meant the dumper. Yes, at moment f_get/setown requires no privileges
>> but I'm not sure if uid/euid is same or less sensible information
>> than pid, that's why I though CAP_FOWNER might be worth to add, no?
>
> Hmm, I would say no, but that might be a good question for kees.
>
> IMO it's not sensitive information and so no sense requiring privilege
> (and encouraging handing out of extra privilage to get at the info)

Nothing jumps out at me about just seeing uid/euid. Everything can be
construed as an information leak, but this don't seem like something
that needs special protection.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-30 21:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site