From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:36:34 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060815163634.8038.qmail@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1155658688.1780.33.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
--- Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> The hard part of capabilities isn't the kernel
> mechanism - it is the
> proper assignment and management of the capability
> bits on files, and
> teaching userland that uid 0 is no longer magic.
Stephen is correct here. Getting the capability
settings correct on all setuid programs is a
tough nut. Training people out of the root
model isn't easy, either.
> Which is all work that
> is already well underway for SELinux, but you would
> have to replicate it
> for capabilities.
The work underway for SELinux is different
from that of capabilities. POSIX capabilities
offer substantial benefits without the high
cost of SELinux.
> And since there is no notion of
> equivalence classes
> ala SELinux types and the "policy" is completely
> distributed throughout
> the filesystem state, management is going to be even
> more painful for
> the capabilities.
This is not the experiance of Irix, which
has supported POSIX capabilities for years.
> On the kernel side, in addition to updating the
> bprm_secureexec logic,
> you would need to consider whether the capability
> module needs to
> implement capability comparisons for the other
> hooks, like task_kill.
> At present, many operations only involve uid
> comparisons and SELinux
> checks without explicitly comparing capability sets.
Yes. There is work to be done.
> Properly isolating
> and protecting processes with different capability
> sets but the same uid
> is something SELinux already can do (based on
> domain), whereas the
> existing capability module doesn't really provide
> that.
That's a matter of taste in policy. There
is certainly no Common Criteria requirement
for that.
Sure, SELinux and POSIX capabilities are
different. No arguement. POSIX capabilities
predate SELinux in the community and in the
Linux kernel. To date they have been limited
by the lack of xattr support, but now that
that is available there is every reason to
complete the implementation.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-15 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-30 1:13 Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-14 22:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 0:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-15 2:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 3:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-15 4:22 ` Nicholas Miell
2006-08-15 11:49 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 12:20 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 19:31 ` Nicholas Miell
2006-08-15 19:41 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 16:18 ` Stephen Smalley
2006-08-15 16:36 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2006-08-16 2:42 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-16 13:20 ` Stephen Smalley
2006-08-17 12:00 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-08-17 12:28 ` Stephen Smalley
2006-08-21 20:36 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-28 21:39 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-29 18:37 ` Seth Arnold
2006-08-29 19:58 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-19 2:02 ` Crispin Cowan
2006-08-19 17:08 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-08-22 2:50 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-22 3:19 ` Seth Arnold
2006-08-19 2:02 ` Crispin Cowan
[not found] ` <44E1153D.9000102@ak.jp.nec.com>
[not found] ` <20060815021612.GC16220@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
2006-08-15 3:48 ` KaiGai Kohei
2006-08-15 12:04 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-15 16:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-08-16 2:25 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-16 2:43 Albert Cahalan
2006-08-16 3:23 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2006-08-16 3:44 ` Casey Schaufler
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=20060815163634.8038.qmail@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nmiell@comcast.net \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--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®