[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Upstream first policy
    On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Ulrich Drepper <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:08, Linus Torvalds
    > <> wrote:
    >> Notice how it's really fundamentally about the pathname? When you create a
    >> new file and overwrite /etc/passwd with that file, the security rules
    >> really do _not_ come from your newly created inode, they come from the
    >> fact that you made the path "/etc/passwd" point to that inode.
    > This is not a fundamental problem.  It's rather a detail of the
    > current policies and legacy apps.
    > I think I would like to see /etc/passwd to also get a file type like
    > /etc/shadow.  This is I think today not done because of the work
    > involved and the perceived lower severity because passwords are in
    > /etc/shadow.
    > So let's talk about /etc/shadow.  If somehow the file is removed and
    > somebody creates a new file that file won't automatically get the
    > right label.  This means that code reading the file then could be
    > prevented from doing this with appropriate policy rules.  Here the
    > filename is not sufficient for access.  You also need the label and
    > that you won't get without subverting the system.  With filename based
    > mechanisms this isn't the case: once the file is compromised the
    > attack succeeded.
    > Yes, the current situation isn't optimal.  We have to make the
    > policies more complicated and we have to get rid of restorecond (at
    > least for most cases).  But there is no fundamental problem with
    > labels while filename-based mechanisms provide no security
    > improvement.

    At the moment the default label of a new file is created based on the
    label of the creating process and the label of the parent directory.
    It's certainly not impossible that a third factor could be added 'the
    last component of the pathname of the new inode' to the decision
    matrix. Doing so would eliminate the need for restorecond in most (or
    maybe all) situations while maintaining the useful security principles
    of label based enforcement. It actually has been suggested and
    implemented, but as I recall we were told it violated some VFS rules
    to pass the information we passed where we passed it and it was

    *tongue in cheek* if TOMOYO and AppArmour can do thing which the VFS
    maintainer say is wrong and unacceptable merely by sending them to the
    security maintainer instead I guess SELinux can do that as well!

    answering a different post in the same email: I accept "THERE ARE
    DIFFERENT CASES." You go on to say "So I'm not suggesting we
    _replace_ content-based security with pathname-based security. I'm
    just saying that pathnames actually do matter for security, and that
    they are an independent issue." But what you are suggesting is
    EXACTLY that our users should _replace_ content-based security with
    pathname-based security when they have to boot with security=TOMOYO
    instead of security=SMACK. Rather than finding a flexible framework,
    finding problems or inadequacies in that framework, and solving those
    problems you instead force our users to have to choose between LSMs
    which are either A) secueable but non-intuitive or B) not securable
    but known to be 'easier'.

    I think the inode based security view as a hammer might not be all
    that bad. It works really well on nails (you know the truely hard
    well researched security questions) and it can beat screws into a
    piece of wood as well (although sometimes the wood cracks). Calling
    pathname based security a screwdriver fits too, it can put the screws
    in but we know there are a lot of nails out there which it can't ever
    deal with.

    Personally I think we should all get together and agree on a framework
    and fix the framework to meet all of the needs and look like a swiss
    army hammer driver drill thing rather than having 4 options, none of
    which meet all the needs, and then forcing our uneducated users to
    choose between them. But, hey, we all know that isn't going to happen
    so I'll just go back to happy go lucky dream land where Linus is not
    running around naked with a chain saw.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-09 00:15    [W:0.025 / U:5.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site