|
Message-ID: <20111107201908.GA5827@albatros> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:19:08 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to /proc/interrupts On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 15:10 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:18:32 PST, "H. Peter Anvin" said: > > > I would like to propose that we add a mount option to procfs, and > > possibly sysfs, called, say, admingrp. These kinds of files then get > > restricted to the admingrp (defaulting to gid 0 if no admingrp is > > provided). Historically on Unix there has been a group of people > > (usually "adm", but sometimes "log") who are allowed to read (but not > > write) the log files, which also contains potentially sensitive information. > > Probably should be a two part - mount with 'gid=NNN', and then a > perm=027 or whatever, to be treated similar to a umask. So 027 > would allow root to do anything, would disable write for the gid= group, > and turn it off completely for others. Less paranoid sites could mount > it with perm=002. > > Does that cover most of the use cases? At the time of Linux 2.0-2.4 in Owl patch there was a plain on/off configure option - 022 / 066 umask. Currently procfs restriction is implemented in Grsecurity with the same all-or-nothing approach. Brad Spengler told me that there were no user complains about the lack of flexibility :-) So, I agree that we don't need anything more complex. Thanks, -- Vasiliy Kulikov http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
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.