From: Joshua Brindle <method@gentoo.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: David Madore <david.madore@ens.fr>,
Linux Kernel mailing-list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LSM mailing-list <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 3/4: introduce new capabilities
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:56:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <450451DB.5040104@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1157905393.23085.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-09-10 am 15:42 +0200, ysgrifennodd David Madore:
>
>> Introduce six new "regular" (=on-by-default) capabilities:
>>
>> * CAP_REG_FORK, CAP_REG_OPEN, CAP_REG_EXEC allow access to the
>> fork(), open() and exec() syscalls,
>>
>
> CAP_REG_EXEC seems meaningless, I can do the same with mmap by hand for
> most types of binary execution except setuid (which is separate it
> seems)
>
> Given the capability model is accepted as inferior to things like
> SELinux policies why do we actually want to fix this anyway. It's
> unfortunate we can't discard the existing capabilities model (which has
> flaws) as well really.
>
>
To expand on this a little, some of the capabilities you are looking to
add are of very little if any use without being able to specify objects.
For example, CAP_REG_OPEN is whether the process can open any file
instead of specific ones. How many applications open no files whatsoever
in practice? Even if there are some as soon as they change and need to
open a file they'll need this capability and will be able to open any.
CAP_REG_WRITE has the same problem. For a description of why
CAP_REG_EXEC is meaningless see the digsig thread on the LSM list from
earlier this year.
Further, adding more capabilities would likely make existing LSM's (like
SELinux) deal with them. Since most LSM's already handle these
permissions on a per-object basis these will be entirely redundant and
more disruptive than useful.
Additionally since dropping capabilities is entirely discretionary and
applications would be modified to actually drop the capabilities I can't
ever see this being used in practice. It also embeds the policy into
applications spread across the filesystem instead of having a
centralized policy. Since these are non-standard capabilities any
application modified to take advantage of them could only do so on Linux.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-10 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-10 13:37 [PATCH 1/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 1/4: enlarge capability sets David Madore
2006-09-10 13:41 ` [PATCH 2/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 2/4: change inheritance semantics David Madore
2006-09-10 13:42 ` [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 3/4: introduce new capabilities David Madore
2006-09-10 16:23 ` Alan Cox
2006-09-10 16:09 ` David Madore
2006-09-11 8:06 ` James Morris
2006-09-11 12:03 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-11 16:22 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-17 18:06 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-10 17:56 ` Joshua Brindle [this message]
2006-09-10 20:03 ` David Madore
2006-09-11 6:10 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-11 6:51 ` David Madore
2006-09-11 13:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2006-09-17 18:14 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-17 20:39 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-17 21:16 ` David Madore
2006-09-18 11:46 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-18 11:58 ` David Madore
2006-09-18 12:04 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-18 12:12 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-18 16:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-19 0:25 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-19 3:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-19 4:09 ` Joshua Brindle
2006-09-19 15:54 ` Casey Schaufler
2006-09-19 18:27 ` Pavel Machek
2006-09-10 13:44 ` David Madore
2006-09-10 13:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 4/4: add filesystem support David Madore
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=450451DB.5040104@gentoo.org \
--to=method@gentoo.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=david.madore@ens.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@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