Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1635717 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-04 15:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-05 18:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> - 2017-05-04 17:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2017-05-05 18:20 +0200
| From | Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 15:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction |
| Message-ID | <tDoG5-3Su-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> 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 example, saying that interactive users can >> autoload modules but other users can't, or that certain systemd >> services can, etc, might be nice. Linus already complained that he >> (i.e. user "torvalds" or whatever) should be able to profile the >> kernel but that other uids should not be able to. > > Neat, maybe this could already be achieved with this interface and > systemd-logind, "ModulesAutoloadUsers=andy" in logind.conf where > "andy" is the only logged-in user able to trigger and autoload kernel > modules. However maybe we should not restrict too much other bits or > functionality of the other users, please let me will follow up later > on it. > >> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting >> to prototype it. > Andy following on the idea of per user settings, I'm curious did you manage to make some advance on how to store the user settings ? the user database format is old and not extensible, there was cgmanager or other libcgroup but for resources, and no simple thing for such restrictions example: "RestrictLinuxModules=user" that will prevent such users from making/loading extra Linux features/modules that are not already available... Thanks! -- tixxdz
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tDqoy-4PF-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1635717 |
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> 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 example, saying that interactive users can > >> autoload modules but other users can't, or that certain systemd > >> services can, etc, might be nice. Linus already complained that he > >> (i.e. user "torvalds" or whatever) should be able to profile the > >> kernel but that other uids should not be able to. > > > > Neat, maybe this could already be achieved with this interface and > > systemd-logind, "ModulesAutoloadUsers=andy" in logind.conf where > > "andy" is the only logged-in user able to trigger and autoload kernel > > modules. However maybe we should not restrict too much other bits or > > functionality of the other users, please let me will follow up later > > on it. > > > >> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting > >> to prototype it. > > > > Andy following on the idea of per user settings, I'm curious did you > manage to make some advance on how to store the user settings ? the > user database format is old and not extensible, there was cgmanager or (v2 is under very very early consideration, would love to stay in the loop as this is considered) > other libcgroup but for resources, and no simple thing for such > restrictions example: "RestrictLinuxModules=user" that will prevent > such users from making/loading extra Linux features/modules that are > not already available... > > Thanks! > > -- > tixxdz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tDL9E-28E-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1635818 |
Hi Serge, On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> 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 <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> 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 example, saying that interactive users can >> >> autoload modules but other users can't, or that certain systemd >> >> services can, etc, might be nice. Linus already complained that he >> >> (i.e. user "torvalds" or whatever) should be able to profile the >> >> kernel but that other uids should not be able to. >> > >> > Neat, maybe this could already be achieved with this interface and >> > systemd-logind, "ModulesAutoloadUsers=andy" in logind.conf where >> > "andy" is the only logged-in user able to trigger and autoload kernel >> > modules. However maybe we should not restrict too much other bits or >> > functionality of the other users, please let me will follow up later >> > on it. >> > >> >> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting >> >> to prototype it. >> > >> >> Andy following on the idea of per user settings, I'm curious did you >> manage to make some advance on how to store the user settings ? the >> user database format is old and not extensible, there was cgmanager or > > (v2 is under very very early consideration, would love to stay in the loop > as this is considered) > For user database I'm not aware of any code, but it seems that if the database or settings are adapted to today use cases then systemd-logind may use them. Yes if there is something I'll Cc'you. Thanks! -- tixxdz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tDO7v-437-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1635717 |
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> 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 example, saying that interactive users can >>> autoload modules but other users can't, or that certain systemd >>> services can, etc, might be nice. Linus already complained that he >>> (i.e. user "torvalds" or whatever) should be able to profile the >>> kernel but that other uids should not be able to. >> >> Neat, maybe this could already be achieved with this interface and >> systemd-logind, "ModulesAutoloadUsers=andy" in logind.conf where >> "andy" is the only logged-in user able to trigger and autoload kernel >> modules. However maybe we should not restrict too much other bits or >> functionality of the other users, please let me will follow up later >> on it. >> >>> I personally like my implicit_rights idea, and it might be interesting >>> to prototype it. >> > > Andy following on the idea of per user settings, I'm curious did you > manage to make some advance on how to store the user settings ? the > user database format is old and not extensible, there was cgmanager or > other libcgroup but for resources, and no simple thing for such > restrictions example: "RestrictLinuxModules=user" that will prevent > such users from making/loading extra Linux features/modules that are > not already available... > I figured that user code would figure it out somehow. Text config file? There is another odd way it could be configured: just leave the inodes around in /dev/rights with appropriate permissions. Some startup script could re-instantiate them with the same permissions (via a syscall that does that atomically).
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web