From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Sender: Vasiliy Kulikov Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:38:45 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov Message-ID: <20110615153845.GA10715@albatros> References: <20110614083559.GB7973@albatros> <20110615143844.GB32753@openwall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110615143844.GB32753@openwall.com> Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] HARDEN_VM86 To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com List-ID: Solar, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 18:38 +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > If upstream is fine with sysctl's setting gids, and this appears to be > the case, then let's go for this. I see one problem with gid style - as gid is a per pid_namespace thing, it should be configurable per pid_namespace. But on the other hand, a potential bug might lead to a privilege escalation (not a in-namespace root, but e.g. arbitrary write into any physical address) due to the nature of the syscall. So, in-namespace root shouldn't be able to configure who is able to do vm86(2), otherwise it is able to gain full root. I'm confused :\ -- Vasiliy