Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file'sopener may access task

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 03:17:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  Hence the NAK.
> But Having two LSM Hooks there is really not practical!

It'd doable *if* it turns out that it's the right solution.

But revoke seems much more likely to be simple, comprehensible, and
obviously correct to me.

--Andy

>
> Note to mention some of these redundancy checks...
>
>> >
>> > Is there some mechanism to check what you describe?
>> >
>>
>> No.  You could try to add one, but getting it to be compatible with
>> YAMA might be really messy.
> LSM is limitted in this situation, and it can't work with YAMA, or
> perhaps YAMA will just return -EPERM
>
> So this LSM protections are currently vulnerable too!
>
>
>> Or you could see if destroying and recreating all the inodes on exec
>> or some other revoke-like approach would work.
>>
>> --Andy
>
> --
> Djalal Harouni
> http://opendz.org



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/