[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:59:03 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: Yama: add ptrace relationship tracking interface
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:30:58PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 16:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > + if (mode == PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH &&
> > + ptrace_scope &&
> > + !capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) &&
> > + !task_is_descendant(current, child) &&
> > + !ptracer_exception_found(current, child))
> > + rc = -EPERM;
>
> capable() is better to put after all other tests
Right, but...
> as a failed capable()
> might emit a false positive warning into logs or something.
...primarily for another reason: a successful capable() sets
PF_SUPERPRIV, whereas the permission might have been granted without
capable() as well. The PF_SUPERPRIV flag is visible via BSD process
accounting.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
