From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: 孟敬姿 <mengjingzi@iie.ac.cn>,
brauner@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: proposal to refine capability checks when _rlimit_overlimit() is true
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:30:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240103173002.GB136592@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2024010353-legwarmer-flap-869d@gregkh>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 07:11:18AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 11:12:28AM +0800, 孟敬姿 wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > We observed a potential refinement in the kernel/fork.c line 2368.
> > Currently, both CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_RESOURCE are checked when
> > the limit is over system limit. We suggest considering an adjustment
> > to utilize CAP_SYS_RESOURCE exclusively. Here's our rationale for this
> > suggestion:
>
> As I said when you proposed changing CAP permissions on the tty ioctls,
> have you tried this and seen what actually breaks by doing so? Please
> audit the userspace code out there to ensure that what you are
> attempting to propose actually would work, and then, if so, submit a
> patch to do so. Attempts of "wouldn't it be nice", don't go very far as
> it shows that the work to do so hasn't actually been done.
It's not just a matter of "auditing the userspace code", but how
systems might be set up. So doing this could very easily cause
various systems to break based on how system administrators might have
set up their system.
What capabilities are used to add appropriate permissions is
fundamentally making a potential user space interface, and so it is
incredibly risky. So any time we make such changes, we need to make a
very careful cost/benefit analysis.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-03 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-03 3:12 proposal to refine capability checks when _rlimit_overlimit() is true 孟敬姿
2024-01-03 6:11 ` Greg KH
2024-01-03 17:30 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2024-01-09 11:45 ` 孟敬姿
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=20240103173002.GB136592@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mengjingzi@iie.ac.cn \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox