Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:44:38 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] security: Yama LSM | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote: >> Do you have any objection to my LSM performing ptrace restrictions? >> It's entirely self-contained, and all the major upstream crash >> handlers are already using the prctl() interface it uses to declare >> ptrace attach relationships. > > I don't have the context of what your LSM does. But other LSMs apply their > own rules in security_ptrace(). That's what the hook is for. I'm not sure > why we would object from the perspective of core ptrace functionality. > LSMs are LSMs. Their behavior is between you and your users, as far as I > am concerned. As experts on ptrace and aficionados of its users, we may > have thoughts on what constraints on ptrace users would find annoying. > But that doesn't mean we'd object per se to whatever bizarre constraints > users want to ask an LSM to put on them.
Yup, that's precisely what Yama does as well. Sounds like you're not naking an LSM that uses security_ptrace(), then.
Thanks!
-Kees
-- Kees Cook ChromeOS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |