From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757343AbXH0P23 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:28:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755352AbXH0P2U (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:28:20 -0400 Received: from smtp112.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([68.142.229.93]:27675 "HELO smtp112.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754152AbXH0P2T (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:28:19 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: UDVZv0kVM1kkoy_I0g2K.QNyef7HyTqFUHIGzh42sRNqW7J18ItwFD8RVlBsnTSZ4d5I3bPyQT1MRjMNN.UohwchRDgxSSOA86lazjhwNjVGBwdJRG_1RUJrw3LYjg-- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:28:17 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andrew Morgan , chrisw@sous-sol.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] remove securebits Message-ID: <20070827152817.GA31632@vino.hallyn.com> References: <20070824210649.GG30705@stusta.de> <20070824211942.GA24478@vino.hallyn.com> <46CFA6F2.9030209@kernel.org> <20070825182846.GN30705@stusta.de> <20070827150941.GA31042@vino.hallyn.com> <20070827151751.GD4121@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070827151751.GD4121@stusta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@kernel.org): > On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:09:42AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@kernel.org): > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:50:10PM -0700, Andrew Morgan wrote: > > > > > > > > FWIW, in the mm kernel, I've actually already removed them when one > > > > configures without capabilities. > > > > > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc3/2.6.23-rc3-mm1/broken-out/v3-file-capabilities-alter-behavior-of-cap_setpcap.patch > > > > > > > > Other than writing a custom module, so far as I can tell, there is/was > > > > no way to set them anyway. > > > > > > > > I'd obviously prefer to wait for the mm-merge process to complete and > > > > minimize the churn in this area, but I basically agree that the bits as > > > > implemented are pretty useless in their current form. In a per-process > > > > mode (with filesystem capability support) they are much more useful... > > > > > > It was in the tree for nine years (sic) without a single user... > > > > That's because without file capabilities there was no way for a process > > to retain capabilities across exec, so not having a privileged root user > > was simply not workable. > > > > > Are you only improving a dead horse, or do you also have a rider for the > > > improved dead horse? > > > > It will allow process trees to run with strict capabilities, without a > > root user which automatically gains full capabilities. That wasn't > > possible without file capabilities, since there was no way for processes > > to retain capabilities across exec. Now that we have file capabilities, > > it is feasible, and it certainly is useful. > > I didn't question that the dead horse gets improved, but where's the > rider? > > A user of the improved securebits has to be submitted for inclusion in > the kernel. The user would be userspace... Unless by 'the user' you actually mean the patch itself which will allow the setting of secure_noroot per-process. I don't know for sure, but suspect Andrew might like to wait until file capabilities make it into and stabilize in Linus' tree before going on with that. -serge