Re: [PATCH 0/3] Taming execve, setuid, and LSMs

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Andrew Lutomirski (luto@mit.edu):
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 16:39 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Andrew Lutomirski (luto@mit.edu):
> 
> >> > and LSM  transitions.  I
> >> > think this is a terrible idea for two reasons:
> >> >   1. LSM transitions already scare me enough, and if anyone relies on
> >> > them working in concert with setuid, then the mere act of separating
> >> > them might break things, even if the "privileged" (by LSM) app in
> >> > question is well-written.
> >>
> >> hmm...
> >>
> >> A good point.
> >
> > At least in the case of SELinux, context transitions upon execve are
> > already disabled in the nosuid case, and Eric's patch updated the
> > SELinux test accordingly.
> >
> 
> True,  but I think it's still asking for trouble -- other LSMs could
> (and almost certainly will, especially the out-of-tree ones) do
> something, and I think that any action at all that an LSM takes in the
> bprm_set_creds hook for a nosuid (or whatever it's called) process is
> wrong or at best misguided.

I could be wrong, but I think the point is that your reasoning is
correct, and that the same reasoning must apply if we're just
executing a file out of an fs which has been mounted with '-o nosuid'.

> Can you think of anything that an LSM should do (or even should be
> able to do) when a nosuid process calls exec, other than denying the
> request outright?  With my patch, LSMs can still reject the open_exec
> call.
> 
> --Andy
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html