From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>,
James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly split capset_check+capset_set
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:26:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041215152639.W469@build.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041215194812.GA3080@IBM-BWN8ZTBWA01.austin.ibm.com>; from serue@us.ibm.com on Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:48:12PM -0600
* Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> As Stephen Smalley pointed out, the cap_capset_check code is redundant
> with what is hardcoded in kernel/capability.c:sys_capset(). On the
> other hand, because the security_capset_set hook is responsible for
> doing both an authorization check and doing the actual change,
> (particularly, in the case of a cap_set_all or cap_set_pg), when
> stacking security modules, the first module may complete the
> capset_set before the second module refuses permission.
The problem is that the module was (theoretically) allowed to manage
capability bits all on its own. I think it's a bit of a braindamaged
idea though, and the bits should just stay in the ->cap_* fields.
> The attached patch (against 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 w/ ioctl patch) removes the
> redundant cap_capset_check hook and moves the security_capset_check
> call to just before security_capset_set. The selinux_capset_set hook
> now simply sets the capability (through its secondary), while
> selinux_capset_check checks the authorization permission.
I think Stephen mentioned this already, but you lose an error now,
where you continue in cap_set_all().
thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-15 23:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-15 19:48 Serge E. Hallyn
2004-12-15 20:34 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-12-15 23:22 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2004-12-15 23:47 ` Chris Wright
2004-12-16 16:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2004-12-15 23:26 ` Chris Wright [this message]
2005-01-04 16:27 [PATCH] properly " Serge E. Hallyn
2005-01-04 20:15 ` Chris Wright
2005-01-04 21:55 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-01-04 22:03 ` Alan Cox
2005-01-04 23:23 ` Chris Wright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041215152639.W469@build.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®