[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:59:13 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Cc: Robert Święcki <robert@...ecki.net>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sysctl: allow CLONE_NEWUSER to
be disabled
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 15:00 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Robert Święcki <robert@...ecki.net> wrote:
>> > 2016-01-22 23:50 GMT+01:00 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>:
>> >
>> > > > Seems that Debian and some older Ubuntu versions are already using
>> > > >
>> > > > $ sysctl -a | grep usern
>> > > > kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone = 0
>> > > >
>> > > > Shall we be consistent wit it?
>> > >
>> > > Oh! I didn't see that on systems I checked. On which version did you find that?
>> >
>> > $ uname -a
>> > Linux bc1 4.3.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.3.3-5~bpo8+1
>> > (2016-01-07) x86_64 GNU/Linux
>> > $ cat /etc/debian_version
>> > 8.2
>>
>> Ah-ha, Debian only, though it looks like this was just committed to
>> the Ubuntu kernel tree too:
>>
>>
>> > IIRC some older kernels delivered with Ubuntu Precise were also using
>> > it (but maybe I'm mistaken)
>>
>> I don't see it there.
>>
>> I think my patch is more complete, but I'm happy to change the name if
>> this sysctl has already started to enter the global consciousness. ;)
>>
>> Serge, Ben, what do you think?
>
> I agree that using the '_restrict' suffix for new restrictions makes
> sense. I also don't think that a third possible value for
> kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone would would be understandable.
>
> I would probably make kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone a wrapper for
> kernel.userns_restrict in Debian, then deprecate and eventually remove
> it.
Okay, cool. We'll keep my patch as-is then. Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.
