[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111123144928.GA3893@hallyn.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:49:28 +0000
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make Yama pid_ns aware
Quoting Vasiliy Kulikov (segoon@...nwall.com):
> Actually, what concerns me is not ptrace, but symlink/hardling
> protection. There is no interaction between namespaces in case of
> containers via symlinks in the basic case. In case of ptrace I don't
> think the child ns may weaken the parent ns - child ns may not access
> processes of the parent namespace and everything it may ptrace is
> already inside of this ns.
Oh, yes. If you're saying the symlink protection shouldn't be
per-pidns, I agree it seems an odd fit.
How about a version of this patch leaving symlink protection
out of pidns (maybe in user ns), and just putting ptrace
protection per-pidns?
-serge
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.
