Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>On 10/3/06, David Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Are you familiar with the mmap(PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS) loophole?
>
>Another person who doesn't know about SELinux. Read
>
>http://people.redhat.com/drepper/selinux-mem.html
You're right, I didn't know about that one. Thanks for the
education and for taking the time to respond.
I wonder whether it is feasible to run with allow_exec{heap,mem,mod,stack}
all set to false, on a real system. Is there any example of a fully
worked out SELinux policy that has these set to false? FC5 has
allow_execheap set to false and all others set to true in its default
SELinux policy, so it looks like the mmap(PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS)
loophole remains open in FC5 by default. My concern would be that setting
all of the exec-related booleans to false might break so much code that
setting them all to false wouldn't be feasible in practice. If so,
the theoretical possibility to close the mmap(PROT_EXEC, MAP_ANONYMOUS)
loophole may be one of these things that is possible in theory but not
in practice.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
