On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 18:24 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > This still appears to be a bit broken > > There are three problems here > > 1. I can stop an app changing privs which in some SELinux or APParmour > cases might mean I prevent it being dropped into a less privileged > position. That's something only the security policy knows. > > So for SELinux and Apparmour and the like in some situations you are > potentially adding a security hole. That one seems hard to fix unless you > fail the exec if it causes a security transition, as opposed to just > keeping the old one. For non change cases we can however still pass the > filter on, which is the usual sane case. I can't speak about AppArmour at all, but not transitioning in SELinux (the same as MNT_NOSUID) is safe since policy will still make a security decision if you are allowed to launch the binary without transitioning. I have thoughts on how to make the SELinux approach more flexible and policy controlled, but I'd be fine with this flag just applying no transition for now and adding that as a new feature down the road. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
