Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751811AbZL0IjT (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751195AbZL0IjR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:17 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:60541 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751132AbZL0IjR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:57 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: michael@laptop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, david@lang.hm, socketcan@hartkopp.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, bdonlan@gmail.com, zbr@ioremap.net, cscott@cscott.net, jmorris@namei.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, bernie@codewiz.org, mrs@mythic-beasts.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, sam@synack.fr, casey@schaufler-ca.com, serue@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4) Message-ID: <20091227083857.GC11737@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20091227010441.GA12077@heat> <200912271736.GDB17180.OFJHOOQStMFLVF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200912271736.GDB17180.OFJHOOQStMFLVF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1298 Lines: 29 On Sun 2009-12-27 17:36:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michael Stone wrote: > > Further suggestions? > > I expect that the future figure of this "disablenetwork" functionality becomes > "disablesyscall" functionality. > > What about defining two types of masks, one is applied throughout the rest of > the task_struct's lifetime (inheritable mask), the other is cleared when > execve() succeeds (local mask)? > > When an application is sure that "I know I don't need to call execve()" or > "I know execve()d programs need not to call ...()" or "I want execve()d > programs not to call ...()", the application sets inheritable mask. > When an application is not sure about what syscalls the execve()d programs > will call but is sure that "I know I don't need to call ...()", the application > sets local mask. Syscalls are very wrong granularity for security system. But easy to implement, see seccomp. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/