From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 1/5] modules:capabilities: add request_module_cap() Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:46:12 +0000 Message-ID: <20171129134612.72ccb53d@alans-desktop> References: <1511803118-2552-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1511803118-2552-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <20171128191405.GO729@wotan.suse.de> <20171128211659.GP729@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Djalal Harouni , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , James Morris , Ben Hutchings , Solar Designer , Serge Hallyn , Jessica Yu , Rusty Russell , LKML , linux-security-module , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Jonathan Corbet , Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" , Network Development , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds To: Kees Cook Return-path: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: In-Reply-To: List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:39:58 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > And *all* auto-loading uses aliases? What's the difference between auto-loading > > and direct-loading? > > The difference is the process privileges. Unprivilged autoloading > (e.g. int n_hdlc = N_HDLC; ioctl(fd, > TIOCSETD, &n_hdlc)), triggers a privileged call to finit_module() > under CAP_SYS_MODULE. If you have CAP_SYS_DAC you can rename any module to ppp.ko and ask the network manager (which has the right permissions) to init a ppp connection. Capabilities alone are simply not enough to do any kind of useful protection on a current system and the Linux capability model is broken architecturally and not fixable because fixing it would break lots of real systems. I really don't care what the module loading rules end up with and whether we add CAP_SYS_YET_ANOTHER_MEANINGLESS_FLAG but what is actually needed is to properly incorporate it into securiy ruiles for whatever LSM you are using. Alan