Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict access to/proc/interrupts

From: Vasiliy Kulikov
Date: Mon Nov 07 2011 - 15:13:26 EST


On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:50 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/07/2011 11:48 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:18 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >> As to procfs, I see no real need of adding mode/group mount option for
> >> global procfs files (/proc/interrupts, /proc/stat, etc.) - it can be
> >> done by distro specific init scripts (chown+chmod). I don't mind
> >> against such an option for the convenience, though.
> >
> > While possible, the chmod+chown 'solutions' just aren't as simple as
> > you pretend. Every time one creates a chroot environment and mounts
> > /proc it has be manually fixed there as well. Same thing with a
> > container. Sure if /proc were something that was only ever mounted
> > one time on a box it wouldn't be so bad, but that's not the case.....
>
> Yes, for a filesystem that dynamically creates nodes, a static script
> just doesn't work well. Control options do, like we have for devpts for
> example.

My statement was about static files - /proc/{interrupts,meminfo,stat,cpuinfo}.
They don't change during the system life. /proc/$PID/* files are indeed
dymanic and the first link in my quoted email was about addition of such
mount options.

Thanks,

--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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/