Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757135AbYBYUYJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:24:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754132AbYBYUXz (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:23:55 -0500 Received: from web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.25]:39879 "HELO web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751841AbYBYUXz (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:23:55 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: zZNWKBcVM1kXpMlMSjw3BLPUIV7mHNhwsIKIo5UKDMXF7S23aFB6BQO7TU7iCAPfbx685icw4Q-- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:23:53 -0800 (PST) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kill_pid_info_as_uid: don't use security_task_kill() To: Stephen Smalley , Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , Casey Schaufler , David Quigley , "Eric W. Biederman" , Eric Paris , Harald Welte , Pavel Emelyanov , "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1203965042.2804.196.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <976891.59157.qm@web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1229 Lines: 32 --- Stephen Smalley wrote: > > ... > > > > I think we should omit the permission checks completely, the task which > does > > ioctl(USBDEVFS_SUBMITURB) explicitly asks to send the signal to it, we > should > > not deny the signal even if the task changes its credentials in any way. > > If we are applying checks based on uid/gid to protect suid/sgid > programs, then we ought to also invoke the LSM hook to allow protection > of other credential-changing transformations, like SELinux context > transitions. You either remove all checking or none, please. And if > all, what's the rationale? Perhaps more important to my mind is what lead the developers of this code to go to such significant lengths to provide this access check in the first place. Why was it considered sufficiently important? I concur that it's an ugly bit of hackery, but someone must have felt it was necessary or they wouldn't have done it. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com -- 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/