Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:19:00 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" 
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow restricting permissions in /proc/sys
Message-ID: <201911121517.DC317D5D@keescook>
References: <74a91362-247c-c749-5200-7bdce704ed9e@gmail.com>
 <87d0e8g5f4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <f272bdd3-526d-6737-c906-143d5e5fc478@gmail.com>
 <87h83jejei.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <eb2da7e4-23ff-597a-08e1-e0555d490f6f@gmail.com>
 <87tv7jciq3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <1b0f94ef-ab1c-cb79-dd52-954cf0438af1@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1b0f94ef-ab1c-cb79-dd52-954cf0438af1@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 09:35:46AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> On 5.11.2019 1.41, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > My sense is that if there is any kind of compelling reason to make
> > world-readable values not world-readable, and it doesn't break anything
> > (except malicious applications) than a kernel patch is probably the way
> > to go.
> 
> With kernel patch, do you propose to change individual sysctls to not
> world-readable? That surely would help everybody instead of just those who
> care enough to change /proc/sys permissions. I guess it would also be more
> effort by an order of magnitude or two to convince each owner of a sysctl to
> accept the change.

I would think of this as a two-stage process: provide a mechanism to
tighten permissions arbitrarily so that it is easier to gather evidence
about which could have their default changed in the future.

> These code paths have not changed much or at all since the initial version
> in 2007, so I suppose the maintenance burden has not been overwhelming.
> 
> By the way, /proc/sys still allows changing the {a,c,m}time. I think those
> are not backed anywhere, so they probably suffer from same caching problems
> as my first version of the patch.

Is a v2 of this patch needed? It wasn't clear to me if the inode modes
were incorrectly cached...?

-- 
Kees Cook