[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:44:53 +0200
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Zendyani <zendyani@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] modules:capabilities:
automatic module loading restriction
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 00:20 +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> [...]
>> +modules_autoload:
>> +
>> +A sysctl to control if modules auto-load feature is allowed or not.
>> +This sysctl complements "modules_disabled" which is for all module
>> +operations where this flag applies only to automatic module loading.
>> +Automatic module loading happens when programs request a kernel feature
>> +that is implemented by an unloaded module, the kernel automatically
>> +runs the program pointed by "modprobe" sysctl in order to load the
>> +corresponding module.
>> +
>> +When modules_autoload is set to (0), the default, there are no
>> +restrictions.
>> +
>> +When modules_autoload is set to (1), processes must have CAP_SYS_MODULE
>> +to be able to trigger a module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN
>> +for modules with a 'netdev-%s' alias.
>> +
>> +When modules_autoload is set to (2), automatic module loading is
>> +disabled for all. Once set, this value can not be changed.
>
> I would expect a parameter 'modules_autoload' to be a boolean, so this
> behaviour would be surprising.
>
> What is the point of mode 2? Why would someone want to set
> modules_disabled=0 and modules_autoload=2?
modules_disabled is too restrictive and once set it can't be changed,
maybe that's why not all users use it.
With modules_disabled=0 and modules_autoload=2
* The functionality of the system can still be made available.
* You only disable automatic module loading
* Explicit module load/unload can still happen. Administrators or
privileged programs can still explicitly load modules provide a
feature without rebooting.
* You are able to restrict some applications from inserting new
modules at all by also applying a seccomp filter and removing their
CAP_SYS_MODULE, where explicit load/unload is still available to
others.
* You are able to unload an old bad version of the module without
rebooting, and maybe load the new version.
> [...]
>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
> [...]
>> +static int modules_autoload_privileged_access(const char *name)
>> +{
>> + if (capable(CAP_SYS_MODULE))
>> + return 0;
>> + else if (name && strstr(name, "netdev-") && capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> [...]
>
> We want a prefix match, so use strncmp() not strstr().
Indeed, will fix it.
Thanks!
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice
> versa.
>
--
tixxdz
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.
