Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934824AbXKPV7B (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:59:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758417AbXKPV6x (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:58:53 -0500 Received: from namei.org ([69.55.235.186]:53198 "EHLO us.intercode.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757578AbXKPV6w (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:58:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:58:01 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@us.intercode.com.au To: Eric Paris cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, alan@redhat.com, chrisw@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] security: allow capable check to permit mmap or low vm space In-Reply-To: <1195250009.2924.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <1195246545.2924.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1195250009.2924.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1459 Lines: 39 On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Eric Paris wrote: > On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 08:47 +1100, James Morris wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Eric Paris wrote: > > > > > On a kernel with CONFIG_SECURITY but without an LSM which implements > > > security_file_mmap it is impossible for an application to mmap addresses > > > lower than mmap_min_addr. > > > > Actually, should we be doing any checking in the dummy module, given that > > it is not done with !CONFIG_SECURITY ? > > I'm not sure I understand the question. We already do a number of > capable type security checks in dummy functions. See dummy_settime() as > just one example. I mean just in this case. If no mmap_min_addr check is done without CONFIG_SECURITY, then perhaps none should be done in the dummy module, i.e. preserving existing behavior. LSM is theoretically supposed to be unnoticable from a behavioral pov unless a non-dummy module is loaded. > > If we have !CONFIG_SECURITY we don't have any security protections (how > could we? we turned them off) so we don't get into dummy hooks. If we > do checks or not in uncompiled code doesn't seem to me to matter. > > Maybe I'm just confused... > > -Eric > -- James Morris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/