Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:41:12 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <>
To: Kees Cook <>, Al Viro <>,
	James Morris <>
CC: Jann Horn <>, Mickaël Salaün
	<>, kernel list <>, Jonathan
 Corbet <>, Matthew Garrett <>, Michael
 Kerrisk-manpages <>, Mimi Zohar <>,
	<>, Shuah Khan <>,
	<>, <>, Perez
 Yves-Alexis <>, Kernel Hardening
	<>, Linux API <>,
	linux-security-module <>,
	"" <>, Andy
 Lutomirski <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] Yama: Enforces noexec mounts or file
 executability through O_MAYEXEC

On 09/01/2019 00:30, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 5:29 AM Mickaël Salaün
> <> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2019 12:17, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Mickaël Salaün
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2018 18:09, Jann Horn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:18 AM Mickaël Salaün <> wrote:
>>>>>> Enable to either propagate the mount options from the underlying VFS
>>>>>> mount to prevent execution, or to propagate the file execute permission.
>>>>>> This may allow a script interpreter to check execution permissions
>>>>>> before reading commands from a file.
>>>>>> The main goal is to be able to protect the kernel by restricting
>>>>>> arbitrary syscalls that an attacker could perform with a crafted binary
>>>>>> or certain script languages.  It also improves multilevel isolation
>>>>>> by reducing the ability of an attacker to use side channels with
>>>>>> specific code.  These restrictions can natively be enforced for ELF
>>>>>> binaries (with the noexec mount option) but require this kernel
>>>>>> extension to properly handle scripts (e.g., Python, Perl).
> I like this idea, but I think it shouldn't live in Yama (since it is
> currently intended to be a ptrace-policy-only LSM). It was
> _originally_ designed to do various DAC improvements, but the
> agreement was that those should live directly in the VFS instead (i.e.
> the symlink, hardlink and now fifo and regular file defenses).
> This should likely go in similarly. (But if not, it could also be its own LSM.)

I think that Yama is quite handy and make sense here, but I'm fine
putting this knob elsewhere. However, I was thinking, for a future patch
series, to add another sysctl to lock this choice, i.e. generalizing the
way Yama can lock the ptrace_scope.

What matter here is the ability for an LSM to use this O_MAYEXEC flag.
Yama is a good place to showcase this feature and I think it is cleaner
to leverage the LSM framework to put new (optional) security features. I
can easily create a new LSM but it would be pretty similar to Yama...
What do you think about it James and Al?

Side question: wouldn't it be better to use a 0600 mode (instead of
0644) for this kind of sysctl?

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.