lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It also gets rid of all configuration - one of the things that
>>>> makes most security frameworks (look at selinux, but also just
>>>> ACL's etc) such a crazy rats nest is the whole "set up for other
>>>> processes". If it's designed very much to be about just the "self"
>>>> process (after initialization etc), then I think that avoids pretty
>>>> much all the serious issues.
>>>
>>> That's how the event filters work currently: even when inherited they
>>> get removed when exec-ing a setuid task, so they cannot leak into
>>> privileged context and cannot modify execution there.
>>>
>>> Inheritance works when requested, covering only same-credential child
>>> tasks, not privileged successors.
>>
>> this is a very reasonable default, but there should be some way of
>> saying that you want the restrictions to carry over to the suid
>> task (I really know what I'm doing switch)
>
> Unless you mean that root should be able to do it it's a security
> hole both for events and for filters:
>
> - for example we dont want really finegrained events to be used to
> BTS hw-trace sshd and thus enable it to discover cryptographic
> properties of the private key sshd is using.
>
> - we do not want to *modify* the execution flow of a setuid program,
> that can lead to exploits: by pushing the privileged codepath into
> a condition that can never occur on a normal system - and thus can
> push it into doing something it was not intended to do.
>
> data damage could be done as well: for example if the privileged
> code is logging into a system file then modifying execution can
> damage the log file.
>
> So it's not a good idea in general to allow unprivileged code to
> modify the execution of privileged code. In fact it's not a good idea
> to allow it to simply *observe* privileged code. It must remain a
> black box with very few information leaking outwards.

I was thinking of the use case of the real sysadmin (i.e. root) wanting to
be able to constrain things. I can see why you would not want to allow
normal users to do this.

David Lang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 21:51    [W:0.078 / U:34.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site