All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	sds@tycho.nsa.gov, davem@davemloft.net,
	shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kees@ubuntu.com,
	morgan@kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com, dwalsh@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] security: introducing security_request_module
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:03:06 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090813140306.GC30731@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813134457.29186.7182.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> Calling request_module() will trigger a userspace upcall which will load a
> new module into the kernel.  This can be a dangerous event if the process
> able to trigger request_module() is able to control either the modprobe
> binary or the module binary.  This patch adds a new security hook to
> request_module() which can be used by an LSM to control a processes ability
> to call request_module().

Is there a specific case in which you'd want to deny this ability
from a real task?

-serge

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	sds@tycho.nsa.gov, davem@davemloft.net,
	shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kees@ubuntu.com,
	morgan@kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com, dwalsh@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] security: introducing security_request_module
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:03:06 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090813140306.GC30731@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090813134457.29186.7182.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> Calling request_module() will trigger a userspace upcall which will load a
> new module into the kernel.  This can be a dangerous event if the process
> able to trigger request_module() is able to control either the modprobe
> binary or the module binary.  This patch adds a new security hook to
> request_module() which can be used by an LSM to control a processes ability
> to call request_module().

Is there a specific case in which you'd want to deny this ability
from a real task?

-serge

  reply	other threads:[~2009-08-13 14:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-13 13:44 [PATCH 1/3] Networking: use CAP_NET_ADMIN when deciding to call request_module Eric Paris
2009-08-13 13:44 ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 13:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] security: introducing security_request_module Eric Paris
2009-08-13 13:44   ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 14:03   ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2009-08-13 14:03     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 15:28     ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 15:28       ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 17:54       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 17:54         ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:19         ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 18:19           ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 18:31           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:31             ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:40   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:40     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 13:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] SELinux: add selinux_kernel_module_request Eric Paris
2009-08-13 13:45   ` Eric Paris
2009-08-13 18:43   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:43     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 14:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] Networking: use CAP_NET_ADMIN when deciding to call request_module Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 14:01   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-13 18:45 ` Paul Moore
2009-08-13 18:45   ` Paul Moore
2009-08-13 22:55   ` James Morris
2009-08-13 22:55     ` James Morris
2009-08-13 23:14   ` David Miller
2009-08-14  1:56 ` James Morris
2009-08-14  1:56   ` James Morris
     [not found] <20090813033537.27287.18981.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>
     [not found] ` <20090813033543.27287.95970.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>
2009-08-13 17:17   ` [PATCH 2/3] security: introducing security_request_module Daniel J Walsh
2009-08-13 17:17     ` Daniel J Walsh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090813140306.GC30731@us.ibm.com \
    --to=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dwalsh@redhat.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=kees@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morgan@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.