Re: [PATCH] Security: Implement and document RLIMIT_NETWORK.

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 06:52:27PM +0200, RÃmi Denis-Courmont (rdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Le mercredi 7 janvier 2009 13:47:03 Evgeniy Polyakov, vous avez ÃcritÂ:
> > The same goal can be achieved with 'owner' iptables match module btw.
> 
> Err no. iptables is _not_ suitable for userland applications dropping their 
> _own_ privileges. For privileged processes, it's clumsy at best, as iptables 
> does not quite work if more than one applications uses it. That's typically 
> your firewall configuration wizard or some custom admin-made script.
> As for UNprivileged processes, iptables is not allowed.

If setting that rlimit does not require admin priviledges, then it does
not require to drop this. So it is superuser or admin who does this.
And exactly the same can be achieved with 'owner' iptables module.

If process itself changes own rlimit, then it is not a rlimit, but a
hint to how it is supposed to work.

Plus I did not see how fork is protected, i.e. does children get the
same rlimit, it looks like it does not.

> As I understand it, Michael is trying to build something similar to SECCOMP, 
> only way less restrictive and way more usable by real-life userland programs.

Security and unpriveledged setup are mutually impossible cases.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/