From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
lsm <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] security: split proc ptrace checking into read vs. attach
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <913573.56827.qm@web36607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1210877785.28282.131.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
--- Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> Enable security modules to distinguish reading of process state via
> proc from full ptrace access by renaming ptrace_may_attach to
> ptrace_may_access and adding a mode argument indicating whether only
> read access or full attach access is requested. This allows security
> modules to permit access to reading process state without granting
> full ptrace access. The base DAC/capability checking remains unchanged.
>
> Read access to /proc/pid/mem continues to apply a full ptrace attach
> check since check_mem_permission() already requires the current task
> to already be ptracing the target. The other ptrace checks within
> proc for elements like environ, maps, and fds are changed to pass the
> read mode instead of attach.
>
> In the SELinux case, we model such reading of process state as a
> reading of a proc file labeled with the target process' label. This
> enables SELinux policy to permit such reading of process state without
> permitting control or manipulation of the target process, as there are
> a number of cases where programs probe for such information via proc
> but do not need to be able to control the target (e.g. procps,
> lsof, PolicyKit, ConsoleKit). At present we have to choose between
> allowing full ptrace in policy (more permissive than required/desired)
> or breaking functionality (or in some cases just silencing the denials
> via dontaudit rules but this can hide genuine attacks).
>
> This version of the patch incorporates comments from Casey Schaufler
> (change/replace existing ptrace_may_attach interface, pass access
> mode), and Chris Wright (provide greater consistency in the checking).
Looks better to me.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-15 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-15 18:56 Stephen Smalley
2008-05-15 19:25 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2008-05-15 19:37 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-05-15 19:45 ` Stephen Smalley
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=913573.56827.qm@web36607.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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®