[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEiveUdQzHjG0OSvG=63PBOmjL19f5-qM8Fap51xSM5eDUcihw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 08:31:05 +0200
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Zendyani <zendyani@...il.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 1/3] modules:capabilities: allow
__request_module() to take a capability argument
Hi Kees,
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> wrote:
...
>
>> BTW Kees, also in next version I won't remove the
>> capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN) check from [1]
>> even if there is the new request_module_cap(), I would like it to be
>> in a different patches, this way we go incremental
>> and maybe it is better to merge what we have now ? and follow up
>> later, and of course if other maintainers agree too!
>
> Yes, incremental. I would suggest first creating the API changes to
> move a basic require_cap test into the LSM (which would drop the
> open-coded capable() checks in the net code), and then add the
> autoload logic in the following patches. That way the "infrastructure"
> changes happen separately and do not change any behaviors, but moves
> the caps test down where its wanted in the LSM, before then augmenting
> the logic.
>
>> I just need a bit of free time to check again everything and will send
>> a v5 with all requested changes.
>
> Great, thank you!
>
So sorry was busy these last months, I picked it again, will send v5 after the
merge window.
Kees I am looking on a way to integrate a test for it, we should use
something like
the example here [1] or maybe something else ? and which module to use ?
I still did not sort this out, if anyone has some suggestions, thank
you in advance!
[1] http://openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/05/22/7
--
tixxdz
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.
