lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [RFC] Make it easier to harden /proc/
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:07:48PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 22:04:52 schrieb Alexey Dobriyan:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 21:45:45 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > > > On Wednesday 16 March 2011 21:08:16 Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > > > Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 20:55:49 schrieb Kees Cook:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:31:47PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > > > > > When containers like LXC are used a unprivileged and jailed
> > > > > > > root user can still write to critical files in /proc/.
> > > > > > > E.g: /proc/sys/kernel/{sysrq, panic, panic_on_oops, ... }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This new restricted attribute makes it possible to protect such
> > > > > > > files. When restricted is set to true root needs CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> > > > > > > to into the file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was thinking about this too. I'd prefer more fine-grained control
> > > > > > in this area, since some sysctl entries aren't strictly controlled
> > > > > > by CAP_SYS_ADMIN (e.g. mmap_min_addr is already checking
> > > > > > CAP_SYS_RAWIO).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about this instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > Good Idea.
> > > > > May we should also consider a per-directory restriction.
> > > > > Every file in /proc/sys/{kernel/, vm/, fs/, dev/} needs a protection.
> > > > > It would be much easier to set the protection on the parent directory
> > > > > instead of protecting file by file...
> > > >
> > > > How does this interact with the per-namespace sysctls that Eric
> > > > Biederman added a few years ago?
> > >
> > > Do you mean CONFIG_{UTS, UPC, USER, NET,}_NS?
> >
> > It only covers /proc/sys/net/
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > > I had expected that any dangerous sysctl would not be visible in
> > > > an unpriviledge container anyway.
> > >
> > > No way.
> >
> > No way what exactly?
>
> Dangerous sysctls are not protected at all.
> E.g. A jailed root can use /proc/sysrq-trigger.

Yes, and it's suggested that you do not show it at all,
instead of bloaing ctl_table.

But this requires knowledge which /proc is root and which one is "root".
:-(

With current splitup into FOO_NS...
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-16 22:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans