Re: 2.6.6-mm1

[Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>]

* Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil) wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > +hugetlb_shm_group-sysctl-patch.patch
> > > 
> > >  Add /proc/sys/vm/hugetlb_shm_group: this holds the group ID of users who may
> > >  allocate hugetlb shm segments without CAP_IPC_LOCK.  For Oracle.
> > > 
> > > +mlock_group-sysctl.patch
> > > 
> > >  /proc/sys/vm/mlock_group: group ID of users who can do mlock() without
> > >  CAP_IPC_LOCK.  Not sure that we need this.
> > 
> > These two just introduced a subtile behaviour change during stable series,
> > possibly (not likely) leading to DoS opportunities from applications running
> > as gid 0.  Really, with capabilities first and now selinux we have moved
> > away from treating uid 0 special, so introducing special casing of a gid
> > now is more than just braindead.
> 
> Is there anything that would prevent these two patches from being
> re-implemented as a LSM module, replacing the can_do_mlock and
> can_do_hugetlb_shm functions with security hook calls?  They seem like
> perfect candidates for security hook calls and keeping security logic
> out of the core kernel.  Chris, what do you think?

Hrm, it's certainly doable.  Not sure if it would help or clutter the
issue.  /me ponders that one...

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net