Re: [PATCH 2/2] groups: Allow unprivileged processes to use setgroups to drop groups

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

 



On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 07:42:30AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:08:07PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> That may be a bug with the user namespace permission check.  Perhaps we
> >> shouldn't allow dropping groups that aren't mapped in the user
> >> namespace.
> >
> > I'm not saying that we can't change the behavior of whether or not a
> > user can drop a group permission.  I'm just saying that we need to do
> > so consciously.  The setgroups()/getgroups() ABI isn't part of
> > POSIX/SuSv3 so we wouldn't be breaking POSIX compatibility, for those
> > people who care about that.
> 
> It may make sense to reach out to some place like oss-security.
> 
> FWIW, I think we should ask, at the same time, about:
> 
>  - Dropping supplementary groups.
>  - Switching gid/egid/sgid to a supplementary group.
>  - Denying ptrace of a process with supplementary groups that the
> tracer doesn't have.

I wonder how crazy it would be to just require either CAP_SYS_PTRACE or
cred1 == cred2 (as in, you have *exactly* the same credentials as the
target)?

> Also, I much prefer a sysctl to a boot option.  Boot options are nasty
> to configure in many distributions.

Agreed.

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux