Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/07/2024 22:15, Jeff Xu wrote:
IIUC:
CHECK=0, RESTRICT=0: do nothing, current behavior
CHECK=1, RESTRICT=0: permissive mode - ignore AT_CHECK results.
CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1: call AT_CHECK, deny if AT_CHECK failed, no exception.
CHECK=1, RESTRICT=1: call AT_CHECK, deny if AT_CHECK failed, except
those in the "checked-and-allowed" list.

I had much the same question for Mickaël while working on this.

Essentially, "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1" means to restrict without checking. In the context of a script or macro interpreter, this just means it will never interpret any scripts. Non-binary code execution is fully disabled in any part of the process that respects these bits.

"CHECK=1, RESTRICT=1" means to restrict unless AT_CHECK passes. This case is the allow list (or whatever mechanism is being used to determine the result of an AT_CHECK check). The actual mechanism isn't the business of the script interpreter at all, it just has to refuse to execute anything that doesn't pass the check. So a generic interpreter can implement a generic mechanism and leave the specifics to whoever configures the machine.

The other two case are more obvious. "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=0" is the zero-overhead case, while "CHECK=1, RESTRICT=0" might log, warn, or otherwise audit the result of the check, but it won't restrict execution.

Cheers,
Steve




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux