From: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-modules <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
"linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Per-process flag set via prctl() to deny module loading?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:04:31 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52301293-0e21-2885-904b-776b82d5a18d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2023041010-vacation-scribble-ba46@gregkh>
On 10.4.2023 21.37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 01:06:00PM +0300, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>> I'd propose to add a per-process flag to irrevocably deny any loading of
>> kernel modules for the process and its children. The flag could be set (but
>> not unset) via prctl() and for unprivileged processes, only when
>> NoNewPrivileges is also set. This would be similar to CAP_SYS_MODULE, but
>> unlike capabilities, there would be no issues with namespaces since the flag
>> isn't namespaced.
>>
>> The implementation should be very simple.
>
> Patches are always welcome to be reviewed.
>
> But note, please watch out for processes that cause devices to be found,
> and then modules to be loaded that way, it's not going to be as simple
> as you might have imagined...
A very simple version would only add a simple check like
!current->allow_module_load after every !capable(CAP_SYS_MODULE). It
wouldn't block all the ways how modules could be caused to be loaded
indirectly.
I think a less simple version could also do the check at __request_module().
-Topi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-10 21:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-10 10:06 Per-process flag set via prctl() to deny module loading? Topi Miettinen
2023-04-10 13:36 ` Tycho Andersen
2023-04-10 20:47 ` Topi Miettinen
2023-04-10 21:25 ` Tycho Andersen
2023-04-10 18:37 ` Greg KH
2023-04-10 21:04 ` Topi Miettinen [this message]
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=52301293-0e21-2885-904b-776b82d5a18d@gmail.com \
--to=toiwoton@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).