[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1112200751260.30800@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:52:34 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] security: Yama LSM
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:33:10AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA
> > > + ns->ptrace_scope = parent_pid_ns->ptrace_scope;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> >
> > I'd like to see this implemented as an LSM hook, something like
> > security_ptrace_set_scope().
>
> I must be dense, but I fail to understand the purpose of this. The "ptrace
> scope" implemented by Yama is a sysctl, not an system interface. I don't
> understand why (or where) other LSMs would want to catch changing this.
> Can you explain what you're looking for in more detail?
>
We should not see YAMA-specific code in the core kernel. However you do
it, the above should happen in LSM.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
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.
