lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] capabilities: Ambient capabilities
On May 15, 2015 11:31 PM, "Christoph Lameter" <cl@linux.com> wrote:
>
> It would be best to start a complete new thread about this. You
> replied to earlier posts about ambient capabilities and
> people may not see it as a new release.
>
> > pA obeys the invariant that no bit can ever be set in pA if it is
> > not set in both pP and pI. Dropping a bit from pP or pI drops that
> > bit from pA. This ensures that existing programs that try to drop
> > capabilities still do so, with a complication. Because capability
>
> Ok that is a good improvement.
>
> > inheritance is so broken, setting KEEPCAPS, using setresuid to
> > switch to nonroot uids, or calling execve effectively drops
> > capabilities. Therefore, setresuid from root to nonroot
> > conditionally clears pA unless SECBIT_NO_SETUID_FIXUP is set.
> > Processes that don't like this can re-add bits to pA afterwards.
> >
> > The capability evolution rules are changed:
> >
> > pA' = (file caps or setuid or setgid ? 0 : pA)
> > pP' = (X & fP) | (pI & fI) | pA'
> > pI' = pI
> > pE' = (fE ? pP' : pA')
>
> Isnt this equal to
>
> pE' = (fE & pP') | pA'
>
> which does not require conditionals and is symmetric to how pP' is
> calculated. Your formula seems to indicate that pA' bits are not set if
> fE is set. However they are already set unconditionally in pP' regardless.
> This makes it more explicit I think. And I thought we are dealing with
> bitmask arithmetic here?

I think you're right, except that fE is a Boolean, not a bit mask, so
fE | pP' is an odd thing to talk about.

We could say (fE ? pP' : 0) | pA', which could simplify the code a tiny bit.

>
>
> > If you are nonroot but you have a capability, you can add it to pA.
> > If you do so, your children get that capability in pA, pP, and pE.
> > For example, you can set pA = CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, and your
> > children can automatically bind low-numbered ports. Hallelujah!
>
> I love this solution.
>
> > [2] The libcap capability mask parsers and formatters are
> > dangerously misleading and the documentation is flat-out wrong. fE
> > is *not* a mask; it's a single bit. This has probably confused
> > every single person who has tried to use file capabilities.
>
> Hmmm... yes lets clean that up as well. Then your formula makes sense.
>

Maybe a follow-up patch to change the docs would be a good idea.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-18 22:21    [W:0.100 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site