Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 May 2017 10:48:18 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN |
| |
Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org): > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Matt Brown <matt@nmatt.com> wrote: > > On 05/16/2017 05:01 AM, Peter Dolding wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I could see a case being make for CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG. However I still > >>> choose to do with CAP_SYS_ADMIN because it is already in use in the > >>> TIOCSTI ioctl. > >>> > >> Matt Brown don't give me existing behaviour. CAP_SYS_ADMIN is > >> overload. The documentation tells you that you are not to expand it > >> and you openly admit you have. > >> > > > > This is not true that I'm openly going against what the documentation > > instructs. The part of the email chain where I show this got removed > > somehow. Again I will refer to the capabilities man page that you > > quoted. > > > > From http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/capabilities.7.html > > > > "Don't choose CAP_SYS_ADMIN if you can possibly avoid it! > > ... > > The only new features that should be associated with CAP_SYS_ADMIN are > > ones that closely match existing uses in that silo." > > > > My feature affects the TIOCSTI ioctl. The TIOCSTI ioctl already falls > > under CAP_SYS_ADMIN, therefore I actually *am* following the > > documentation. > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN is the right choice here, I agree with Matt: it is > already in use for TIOCSTI. We can't trivially add new capabilities > flags (see the various giant threads debating this, the most recently > that I remember from the kernel lock-down series related to Secure > Boot).
Consideer that if we use CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG now, then any applications which are currently being given CAP_SYS_ADMIN would need to be updated with a second capability. Not acceptable. Even when we split up CAP_SYSLOG, we took care to avoid that (by having the original capability also suffice, so either capability worked).
> >> I fact this usage of TIOCSTI I personally think should require two > >> capabilities flags set. CAP_SYS_ADMIN section left as it is at this > >> stage. With TIOSCTI stuck behind another capability. > >> > >> If you had added a new capability flag you could set file capabilities > >> on any of the old applications depending on the now secured behaviour. > > If we're adjusting applications, they should be made to avoid TIOSCTI > completely. This looks to me a lot like the symlink restrictions: yes, > userspace should be fixed to the do the right thing, but why not > provide support to userspace to avoid the problem entirely? > > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security
| |