[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110604054758.GA4063@albatros>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 09:47:58 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: procfs mount options
Solar,
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 23:11 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> I welcome suggestions on how to achieve the desired functionality for
> procfs in a non-confusing and generic way. It should support the
> following reasonable configuration:
>
> /proc/PID directories restricted to group proc (except for owners and
> root, indeed). However, /proc/cpuinfo and the like unrestricted.
> Here's what this looks like on Linux 2.4.x-ow:
>
> dr-xr-x--- 3 root proc 0 Jun 3 22:59 1
> ...
> dr-xr-x--- 3 syslogd proc 0 Jun 3 22:59 205
> dr-xr-x--- 3 klogd proc 0 Jun 3 22:59 211
> ...
> -r--r--r-- 1 root proc 0 Jun 3 23:00 cpuinfo
> ...
> -r-------- 1 root proc 536743936 Jun 3 23:00 kcore
> -r-------- 1 root proc 0 May 5 20:36 kmsg
> ...
> dr-xr-x--- 5 root proc 0 Jun 3 23:00 net
> ...
> -r--r--r-- 1 root proc 0 Jun 3 23:00 uptime
> -r--r--r-- 1 root proc 0 Jun 3 23:00 version
>
> Perhaps gid=proc,umask=007 should result in the above for /proc/PID, but
> how do we justify it not affecting /proc/cpuinfo, uptime, version (and
> many others)? How do we justify it nevertheless affecting /proc/net (or
> should another option do that)?
I think it should be done with separate mount options for /proc/self/net
(/proc/net is a symlink to /proc/self/net since net namespaces
introduction) and for /proc/PID. All other files should be e.g.
chmod'ed go= and then some white list should be chmod'ed to the relaxed
perms.
> Indeed, we could set some of these perms with chmod post-mount, but as
> discussed this has drawbacks.
Where its drawbacks were discussed? I cannot find anything on
owl-dev. Do you mean some possible diffirences between procfs files
among different kernel versions? If so, white list instead of black
list should partly solve it.
> So ideally our preferred configuration
> (which will be the default on Owl) should be achievable with mount
> options alone.
At least for sysfs it is unreachable if we go in the current direction -
umask doesn't change perms of already created files, and additional
"chmod -R" is needed anyway.
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
