Re: [PATCH 1/3] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}_NETWORK) interface. (v2)

Valdis.Kletnieks
2009-12-18T04:46:14Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:29:57 EST, Michael Stone said:
> Daniel Bernstein has observed [1] that security-conscious userland processes
> may benefit from the ability to irrevocably remove their ability to create,
> bind, connect to, or send messages except in the case of previously connected
> sockets or AF_UNIX filesystem sockets. We provide this facility by implementing
> support for a new prctl(PR_SET_NETWORK) flag named PR_NETWORK_OFF.

Dan does indeed have a point - but is this better achieved via either
the already-existing LSM interfaces (opening the stacking-LSM can of worms
again), or the SECCOMP framework? We already have 2 other ways to turn off
stuff, do we really want a third way?

Alternatively, could a more generalized prctl interface be leveraged to handle
SECCOMP, and/or other targeted things that want to stack with LSM?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]