From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: [PATCH] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}_NETWORK) interface. Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:25:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20091217012540.GA2609@heat> References: <20091216155938.GG15031@basil.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Michael Stone , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , David Lang , Oliver Hartkopp , Alan Cox , Herbert Xu , Valdis Kletnieks , Bryan Donlan , Evgeniy Polyakov , "C. Scott Ananian" , James Morris , "Eric W. Biederman" , Bernie Innocenti , Mark Seaborn To: Andi Kleen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091216155938.GG15031@basil.fritz.box> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:32:43AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: >> 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. >> >> This facility is particularly attractive to security platforms like OLPC >> Bitfrost [2] and to isolation programs like Rainbow [3] and Plash [4]. > > What would stop them from ptracing someone else running under the same > uid who still has the network access? Just like in the (revised from last year) rlimits version, there's a hunk in the prctl_network semantics patch which disables networking-via-ptrace() like so: diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c index 23bd09c..5b38db0 100644 --- a/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -151,6 +151,8 @@ int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode) dumpable = get_dumpable(task->mm); if (!dumpable && !capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE)) return -EPERM; + if (current->network) + return -EPERM; return security_ptrace_access_check(task, mode); } More questions? Regards, and thanks for your interest, Michael