[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <163f298b-b492-fee0-b475-102ae8170419@digikod.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:41:29 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd@...db.de>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Richard Weinberger
<richard@....at>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 08/12] landlock: Add syscall implementations
On 30/10/2020 04:07, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:30 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>> On 29/10/2020 02:06, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 9:04 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>>> These 3 system calls are designed to be used by unprivileged processes
>>>> to sandbox themselves:
> [...]
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Similar checks as for seccomp(2), except that an -EPERM may be
>>>> + * returned.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!task_no_new_privs(current)) {
>>>> + err = security_capable(current_cred(), current_user_ns(),
>>>> + CAP_SYS_ADMIN, CAP_OPT_NOAUDIT);
>>>
>>> I think this should be ns_capable_noaudit(current_user_ns(), CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?
>>
>> Right. The main difference is that ns_capable*() set PF_SUPERPRIV in
>> current->flags. I guess seccomp should use ns_capable_noaudit() as well?
>
> Yeah. That seccomp code is from commit e2cfabdfd0756, with commit date
> in April 2012, while ns_capable_noaudit() was introduced in commit
> 98f368e9e263, with commit date in June 2016; the seccomp code predates
> the availability of that API.
>
> Do you want to send a patch to Kees for that, or should I?
>
I found another case of this inconsistency in ptrace. I sent patches:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201030123849.770769-1-mic@digikod.net/
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.
