From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIR19-0005SB-QZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:21:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIR18-0002It-KI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:21:07 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:58917) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIR18-0002Ih-Bh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:21:06 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e1.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:21:02 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9OKKqoL1880288 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:20:53 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9OKKpql014994 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:20:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4EA5C8A2.2040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:20:50 -0400 From: Corey Bryant MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1319209643-3866-1-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1319209643-3866-4-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5729C.60509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5B0BC.10203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5B8E5.6040306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5BAA1.9010507@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA5BAA1.9010507@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/4] Add cap reduction support to enable use as SUID List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , rmarwah@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/24/2011 03:21 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/24/2011 02:13 PM, Corey Bryant wrote: >>> Right, it's not desirable, but isn't that the best we can do without >>> libcap or FS capabilities? >>> >> >> I think the best we can do is not let it run in those cases. :) I'd >> like see if >> others in the community have an opinion on this though. > > IMHO, it should work as an setuid binary maintaining root privileges. As > long as it's a small binary (which it is) and is easy to audit, it > should be safe. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > Alright, I'll concede on this. I'll run a static analyzer on the code and let it run as root if libcap-ng is not configured. It would be nice to also cut an audit record, but I'm not seeing a precedence for doing that in QEMU. Any thoughts? -- Regards, Corey