Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:41:33 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <>
To: Djalal Harouni <>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <>, Kees Cook <>, 
	Al Viro <>, Andrew Morton <>, 
	Linus Torvalds <>, Ingo Molnar <>, 
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>, Cyrill Gorcunov <>, 
	David Rientjes <>, LKML <>, 
	Linux FS Devel <>, 
	"" <>, Djalal Harouni <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file's
 opener may access task

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 03:17:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Exactly.  Hence the NAK.
> But Having two LSM Hooks there is really not practical!

It'd doable *if* it turns out that it's the right solution.

But revoke seems much more likely to be simple, comprehensible, and
obviously correct to me.


> Note to mention some of these redundancy checks...
>> >
>> > Is there some mechanism to check what you describe?
>> >
>> No.  You could try to add one, but getting it to be compatible with
>> YAMA might be really messy.
> LSM is limitted in this situation, and it can't work with YAMA, or
> perhaps YAMA will just return -EPERM
> So this LSM protections are currently vulnerable too!
>> Or you could see if destroying and recreating all the inodes on exec
>> or some other revoke-like approach would work.
>> --Andy
> --
> Djalal Harouni

Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.