From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754210Ab1KGUN0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:13:26 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:49756 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753635Ab1KGUNZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:13:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:11:20 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Eric Paris , 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 Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts Message-ID: <20111107201120.GA5775@albatros> References: <20111107174522.GA2317@albatros> <9718.1320689192@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20111107190112.GA3732@albatros> <4EB82F08.8060209@zytor.com> <20111107192915.GA4690@albatros> <4EB83674.3040207@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB83674.3040207@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:50 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. My statement was about static files - /proc/{interrupts,meminfo,stat,cpuinfo}. They don't change during the system life. /proc/$PID/* files are indeed dymanic and the first link in my quoted email was about addition of such mount options. Thanks, -- Vasiliy Kulikov http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments