On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> My point is that all of these need some way to
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> My point is that all of these need some way to handle configuration
>>> and inheritance, and I don't think
Hi Serge,
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski
Hi Serge,
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski
>> > wrote:
>> [...]
>> >>
>> >> My point is that
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> My point is that all of these need some way to handle
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> My point is that all of these need some way to handle configuration
> >> and inheritance,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[...]
>>
>> My point is that all of these need some way to handle configuration
>> and inheritance, and I don't think that a bunch of per-task
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[...]
>>
>> My point is that all of these need some way to handle configuration
>> and inheritance, and I don't think that a bunch of per-task prctls is
>> the right way. As just an
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Djalal Harouni writes:
>> Hi Rusty,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Djalal Harouni writes:
When value is (1), task must
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Djalal Harouni writes:
>> Hi Rusty,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Djalal Harouni writes:
When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
module auto-load operation, or
Djalal Harouni writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Djalal Harouni writes:
>>> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
>>> module auto-load operation, or
Djalal Harouni writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Djalal Harouni writes:
>>> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
>>> module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN for modules with a
>>> 'netdev-%s' alias.
>>
>>
Hi Rusty,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Djalal Harouni writes:
>> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
>> module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN for modules with a
>> 'netdev-%s' alias.
Hi Rusty,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Djalal Harouni writes:
>> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
>> module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN for modules with a
>> 'netdev-%s' alias.
>
> Sorry, the magic 'netdev-' prefix is
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
[...]
>>> * DCCP use after free CVE-2017-6074
>>> * n_hldc
Djalal Harouni writes:
> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
> module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN for modules with a
> 'netdev-%s' alias.
Sorry, the magic 'netdev-' prefix is a crawling horror. To do this
properly, you need to
Djalal Harouni writes:
> When value is (1), task must have CAP_SYS_MODULE to be able to trigger a
> module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN for modules with a
> 'netdev-%s' alias.
Sorry, the magic 'netdev-' prefix is a crawling horror. To do this
properly, you need to hand the capability
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [...]
> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [...]
> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
> to prototype it.
I
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
to prototype it.
>>>
>>> I don't like blocking a needed
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
to prototype it.
>>>
>>> I don't like blocking a needed feature behind a large super-feature
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler
>> wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
to prototype it.
>>>
>>> I don't like blocking a needed
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [...]
I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
to prototype it.
>>>
>>> I don't like blocking a needed feature behind a large super-feature
On 4/21/2017 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM,
On 4/21/2017 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler
> wrote:
>> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[...]
>>> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
>>> to prototype it.
>>
>> I don't like blocking a needed feature behind a large super-feature
>> that doesn't exist yet. We'd be able to
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[...]
>>> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting
>>> to prototype it.
>>
>> I don't like blocking a needed feature behind a large super-feature
>> that doesn't exist yet. We'd be able to refactor this code
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19,
On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19,
On 4/21/2017 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> +/*
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
+/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
+static inline int
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>>> +/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
>>> +static inline int
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>>> +/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
>>> +static inline int task_set_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *task,
>>> +
Hi Djalal,
[auto build test ERROR on security/next]
[also build test ERROR on next-20170419]
[cannot apply to linus/master v4.11-rc7]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi Djalal,
[auto build test ERROR on security/next]
[also build test ERROR on next-20170419]
[cannot apply to linus/master v4.11-rc7]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> +/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
>> +static inline int task_set_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *task,
>> +
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>> +/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
>> +static inline int task_set_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *task,
>> + unsigned long value)
>>
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> Previous patches added the global "modules_autoload" restriction. This patch
> make it possible to support process trees, containers, and sandboxes by
> providing an inherited per-task "modules_autoload" flag that cannot
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> Previous patches added the global "modules_autoload" restriction. This patch
> make it possible to support process trees, containers, and sandboxes by
> providing an inherited per-task "modules_autoload" flag that cannot be
> re-enabled
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
[...]
> +/* Returns task's modules_autoload */
> +static inline void task_copy_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *dest,
> + struct task_struct *src)
> +{
> +
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
[...]
> +/* Returns task's modules_autoload */
> +static inline void task_copy_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *dest,
> + struct task_struct *src)
> +{
> + dest->modules_autoload =
58 matches
Mail list logo