Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:36:59 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] security: Yama LSM Sorry, dropped James from cc. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 09:35 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 07:52 +1100, James Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:33:10AM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA > > > > > + ns->ptrace_scope = parent_pid_ns->ptrace_scope; > > > > > +#endif > > > > > + > > > > > > > > I'd like to see this implemented as an LSM hook, something like > > > > security_ptrace_set_scope(). > > > > > > I must be dense, but I fail to understand the purpose of this. The "ptrace > > > scope" implemented by Yama is a sysctl, not an system interface. I don't > > > understand why (or where) other LSMs would want to catch changing this. > > > Can you explain what you're looking for in more detail? > > > > > > > We should not see YAMA-specific code in the core kernel. However you do > > it, the above should happen in LSM. > > Probably this should be security_pid_namespace_create() instead of > security_ptrace_set_scope()? (Or even use create an analog of > register_pernet_subsys() for pid_ns.) > > Then have ->ptrace_scope and similar things as per-LSM private variables > like in task_struct->cred->security. ns->security should be dynamically > allocated. > > Thanks, > > -- > Vasiliy
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.