Re: capabilities patch (v 0.1)

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Bodo Eggert (harvested.in.lkml@7eggert.dyndns.org) wrote:
> > Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote:
> > > * David Madore (david.madore@ens.fr) wrote:

> > >> * Second, a much more extensive change, the patch introduces a third
> > >> set of capabilities for every process, the "bounding" set.  Normally
> > > 
> > > this is not a good idea.  don't add more sets. if you really want to
> > > work on this i'll give you all the patches that have been done thus far,
> > > plus a set of tests that look at all the execve, ptrace, setuid type of
> > > corner cases.
> > 
> > How are you going to tell processes that may exec suid (or set-capability-)
> > programs from those that aren't supposed to gain certain capabilities?
> 
> typically you'd expect exec suid will reset to full caps.

ACK, but

1) I wouldn't want an exploited service to gain any privileges, even by
   chaining userspace exploits (e.g. exec sendmail < exploitstring).  For
   most services, I'd like CAP_EXEC being unset (but it doesn't exist).

2) There are environments (linux-vserver.org) which limit root to a subset
   of capabilities. I think they might use that feature, too. Off cause a
   simple "suid bit" == "all capabilities" scheme won't work there.

-- 
"Just because you are paranoid, do'nt mean they're not after you."
	-- K.Cobain
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/