[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOWbf6e7V77TpUYJwRdmD9vyeqA14hbL-HZqweTEign-hUSKiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:21:41 -0600
From: Lafcadio Wluiki <wluikil@...il.com>
To: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [2/2] procfs/tasks: add a simple per-task procfs hidepid= field
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net> wrote:
>> + case PR_SET_HIDEPID:
>> + if (arg2 < HIDEPID_OFF || arg2 > HIDEPID_INVISIBLE)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (arg2 < me->hide_pid)
>> + return -EPERM;
>> + me->hide_pid = arg2;
>> + break;
>
> Should we test for ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)||no_new_privs here?
> I think it wouldn't hurt, and I'd like to avoid adding new ways in which
> the execution of setuid programs can be influenced. OTOH, people already
> use hidepid now, and it's not an issue... I'm not sure. Opinions?
Hmm, the existing hidepid= thing is a mount option and that you you of
course can only change with root privs so far, hence the NNP thing
doesn't really apply so far on hidepid.
> @Lafcadio: Do you think that requiring no_new_privs to be set would
> break your usecase? Would nginx need to still be able to execute setuid
> binaries?
I think adding the NNP check would be OK for my use. I'll add this to
the next iteration!
> Aside from this, and the comments Kees already made, this looks good
> to me.
Thanks for the review,
L.
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.
