On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Markus Gutschke <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:49, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:46 -0500 >> Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> With this set, a lot of dangerous operations (chroot, unshare, etc) >>> become a lot less dangerous because there is no possibility of >>> subverting privileged binaries. > > I don't want to derail things. So, tell me to go away, if I can't have > what I want. > > Having said that, it would be great if NO_NEW_PRIVS also gave access > to the restricted clone() flags. Such as CLONE_NEWIPC, CLONE_NEWNET > and CLONE_NEWPID. I decided to hold off on extra controversy for awhile. However: https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git;a=commit;h=9a520b74ad5dc14a3d6950b6d63a64714adbdd7d and http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/linux/nnp/newns.c I fully intend to resurrect both of those once nnp lands. (FWIW, I think that CLONE_NEWPID interacts badly with unix socket credentials and should be fixed as a prerequisite for making it easier to access.) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
