Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:12:56 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
       linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
       Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
       Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>,
       Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
       George Wilson <gcwilson@us.ibm.com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES compile option
Message-ID: <20091123231256.GB11570@us.ibm.com>
References: <20091123222130.GA11325@us.ibm.com>
 <4B0B0DDB.4070504@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B0B0DDB.4070504@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1966
Lines: 47

Quoting Randy Dunlap (randy.dunlap@oracle.com):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > As far as I know, all distros currently ship kernels with default
> > CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y.  Since having the option on
> > leaves a 'no_file_caps' option to boot without file capabilities,
> > the main reason to keep the option is that turning it off saves
> > you (on my s390x partition) 5k.  In particular, vmlinux sizes
> > came to:
> > 
> > without patch fscaps=n:		 	53598392
> > without patch fscaps=y:		 	53603406
> > with this patch applied:		53603342
> > 
> > with the security-next tree.
> > 
> > Against this we must weigh the fact that there is no simple way for
> > userspace to figure out whether file capabilities are supported,
> > while things like per-process securebits, capability bounding
> > sets, and adding bits to pI if CAP_SETPCAP is in pE are not supported
> > with SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n, leaving a bit of a problem for
> > applications wanting to know whether they can use them and/or why
> > something failed.
> > 
> > It also adds another subtly different set of semantics which we must
> > maintain at the risk of severe security regressions.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is or is not the same security option that is referred to in
> (new:) http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14675 ?

I don't know.  I would assume he meant 'CONFIG_SECURITY', but that
wouldn't make sense since it should make no difference if no specific
LSM is turned on.

I will subscribe to the bug so I can see his response.  If it is in
fact CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES, then a binary which is setuid-root
may be installed with some file capabilities, but without enough caps
to do what it needs.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/