Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] don't allow CAP_NET_ADMIN to load non-netdev kernel modules | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:07:59 +0000 |
| |
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 11:05 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:02:05 +0300 > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:47 -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> > >> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:14:14 +0300 > >> > >> > Since a8f80e8ff94ecba629542d9b4b5f5a8ee3eb565c any process with > >> > CAP_NET_ADMIN may load any module from /lib/modules/. This doesn't mean > >> > that CAP_NET_ADMIN is a superset of CAP_SYS_MODULE as modules are limited > >> > to /lib/modules/**. However, CAP_NET_ADMIN capability shouldn't allow > >> > anybody load any module not related to networking. > >> > >> Why go through this naming change, which does break things, instead of > >> simply adding a capability mask tag or similar to modules somehow. You > >> could stick it into a special elf section or similar. > >> > >> Doesn't that make tons more sense than this? > > > > This is not "simply", adding special section for a single workaround > > seems like an overkill for me - this touches the core (modules' > > internals), which is not related to the initial CAP_* problem at all. > > > > I'd be happy with not breaking anything, but I don't see any acceptable > > solution. > > I think it's warranted given that it allows us to avoid breaking things. > > I don't understand there is resistence in response to the first idea > I've seen proprosed that actually allows to fix the problem and not > break anything at the same time. > > That seems silly.
You realise that module loading doesn't actually run in the context of request_module(), right?
Ben.
-- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
| |