From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <4EB83674.3040207@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:50:12 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20111107174522.GA2317@albatros> <9718.1320689192@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20111107190112.GA3732@albatros> <4EB82F08.8060209@zytor.com> <20111107192915.GA4690@albatros> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts To: Eric Paris Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , Andrew Morton , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds List-ID: On 11/07/2011 11:48 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> As to procfs, I see no real need of adding mode/group mount option for >> global procfs files (/proc/interrupts, /proc/stat, etc.) - it can be >> done by distro specific init scripts (chown+chmod). I don't mind >> against such an option for the convenience, though. > > While possible, the chmod+chown 'solutions' just aren't as simple as > you pretend. Every time one creates a chroot environment and mounts > /proc it has be manually fixed there as well. Same thing with a > container. Sure if /proc were something that was only ever mounted > one time on a box it wouldn't be so bad, but that's not the case..... Yes, for a filesystem that dynamically creates nodes, a static script just doesn't work well. Control options do, like we have for devpts for example. -hpa