Quoting Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]):
> Quoting Tetsuo Handa ([email protected]):
> > Hello.
> >
> > Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > CAP_MKNOD will be removed from its capability
> > I think it is not enough because the root can rename/unlink device files
> > (mv /dev/sda1 /dev/tmp; mv /dev/sda2 /dev/sda1; mv /dev/tmp /dev/sda2).
>
> Sure but that doesn't bother us :)
>
> The admin in the container has his own /dev directory and can do what he
> likes with the devices he's allowed to have. He just shouldn't have
> access to others. If he wants to rename /dev/sda1 to /dev/sda5 that's
> his choice.
>
> > > To use your approach, i guess we would have to use selinux (or tomoyo)
> > > to enforce that devices may only be created under /dev?
> > Everyone can use this filesystem alone.
>
> Sure but it is worthless alone.
>
> No?
Oh, no, I'm sorry - I was thinking in terms of my requirements again.
But your requirements are to ensure that an application accessing a
device at a well-known location get what it expect.
So then the main quesiton is still the one I think Al had asked - what
keeps a rogue CAP_SYS_MOUNT process from doing
mount --bind /dev/hda1 /dev/null ?
thanks,
-serge
> What will keep the container admin from doing 'mknod /root/hda1 b 3 1'?
>
> > But use with MAC (or whatever access control mechanisms that prevent
> > attackers from unmounting/overlaying this filesystem) is recomennded.
>
> -serge
--
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]
