lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
Serge,

I think that Pavel's point, at its strongest and most general, could be
rephrased as:

"Adding *any* interesting isolation facility to the kernel breaks backwards
compatibility for *some* program [in a way that violates security goals]."

The reason is the one that I identified in my previous note:

"The purpose of isolation facilities is to create membranes inside which
grievous security faults are converted into availability faults."

The question then is simply:

"How do we want to deal with the compatibility-breaking changes created by
introducing new isolation facilities?"

So far, I've seen the following suggestions:

a) setuid restores pre-isolation semantics

- Doesn't work for me because it violates the security guarantee of the
isolation primitive

b) setuid is an escape-hatch

- Probably the cleanest in the long-run

- Doesn't, by itself, suffice for Pavel since it violates backwards
compatibility

c) signal to the kernel through a privileged mechanism that
backwards-incompatible isolation may or may not be used

- No problems seen so far.

I would be happy with (c), assuming we can agree on an appropriate signalling
mechanism and default.

So far, two defaults have been proposed:

default-deny incompatible isolation (Pavel)
default-permit incompatible isolation (Michael)

So far, several signalling mechanisms have been proposed:

1) enabling a kernel config option implies default-permit

- My favorite; apparently insufficient for Pavel?

2) default-deny; disablesuid grants disablenetwork

- "disablesuid" is my name for the idea of dropping the privilege of
exec'ing setuid binaries

- Suggested by Pavel and supported by several others.

- I think it has the same backwards-compatibility problem as
disablenetwork: disablesuid is an isolation primitive.

3) default-deny; dropping a capability from the bounding set grants "permit"

- Suggested by Serge; seems nicely fine-grained but rather indirect

4) default-deny; setting a sysctl implies permit

- Suggested by Serge; works fine for me

5) default-deny; setting a kernel boot argument implies permit

- Suggested by Serge; I like the sysctl better.

I am happiest with (1) and, if (1) isn't good enough, with (4).

Pavel, what do you think of (4)?

Regards,

Michael

P.S. - I'd be happy to know more about existing precedent on introducing
compatibility-breaking changes if any comes to mind. (For example, how were the
Linux-specific rlimits handled?)

P.P.S. - On a completely unrelated note: imagine trying to use SELinux (or your
favorite MAC framework) to restrict the use of prctl(PR_SET_NETWORK,
PR_NETWORK_OFF). Am I right that sys_prctl() contains a
time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTTOU) race (with security_task_prctl() as the
check and with prctl_set_network() as the use) as a result of the actual
argument being passed by address rather than by value?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-29 06:01    [W:0.223 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site