lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >> In common cap we drop the new capabilities if we are being ptraced.
> >> Look for brm->unsafe.
> >
> > Yes - that isn't the issue.
>
> Right. Sorry. I saw that we set unsafe and totally
> missed that we don't act on it in that case.
>
> > It goes back to finding a way to figure out what is inside the
> > file when the installer obviously thought we shouldn't be able
> > to read the file.
> >
> > Do we care? <shrug>
>
> <shrug>
>
> I expect two lines of testing bprm->unsafe and failing
> at the right point would solve that.

But what is the right response? Prevent excecution? Stop the
tracer? Enter some one-shot mode where the whole exec appears
as one step, but tracing continues if execution continues on a
dumpable file?

-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-30 19:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans