Re: 2.6.6-mm1

From: Stephen Smalley
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 09:40:17 EST

On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 17:37, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +hugetlb_shm_group-sysctl-patch.patch
> >
> > Add /proc/sys/vm/hugetlb_shm_group: this holds the group ID of users who may
> > allocate hugetlb shm segments without CAP_IPC_LOCK. For Oracle.
> >
> > +mlock_group-sysctl.patch
> >
> > /proc/sys/vm/mlock_group: group ID of users who can do mlock() without
> > CAP_IPC_LOCK. Not sure that we need this.
> These two just introduced a subtile behaviour change during stable series,
> possibly (not likely) leading to DoS opportunities from applications running
> as gid 0. Really, with capabilities first and now selinux we have moved
> away from treating uid 0 special, so introducing special casing of a gid
> now is more than just braindead.

Is there anything that would prevent these two patches from being
re-implemented as a LSM module, replacing the can_do_mlock and
can_do_hugetlb_shm functions with security hook calls? They seem like
perfect candidates for security hook calls and keeping security logic
out of the core kernel. Chris, what do you think?

Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
National Security Agency

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at