[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110621153102.762557f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:31:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5 v4] procfs: introduce hidepid=, hidenet=, gid= mount
options
Plese cc Alexey on procfs things.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:51:35 +0400
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote:
> This patch series adds support of procfs mount options and adds
> mount options to restrict /proc/<pid>/ directories to owners and
> /proc/<pid>/net/* to root. Additional group may be defined via
> gid=, and this group will be privileged to study others /proc/<pid>/
> and networking information.
>
> Similar features are implemented for old kernels in -ow patches (for
> Linux 2.2 and 2.4) and for Linux 2.6 in -grsecurity, but both of them
> are implemented as configure options, not cofigurable in runtime, with
> changes of gid of /proc/<pid>/, and without backward-compatible
> /proc/<pid>/net/* handling.
This all seems highly specific to one particular set of requirements.
We have one set of access permission rules and then dive into procfs
and hard-wire those rules into the implementation? What happens if
someone else has a similar but slightly different set of requirements?
More kernel patches?
IOW is there some more general way of doing all this? <handwaving>Like
better permissions/chmod support in procfs and an inherited-across-fork
per-process procfs permissions mask.</handwaving>
Does all this code support `mount -o remount' as expected?
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.
