Re: [PATCH] capability: WARN when invalid capability is requestedrather than BUG/panic

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:28 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:22:30 -0400
> > Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > No argument from me that patching up for buggy drivers sucks.  Yours
> > > would be less overhead, and it would return the cap system back to
> > > pre-2.6.25 operation (garbage in garbage out but no panic).  Since we
> > > already have the branch in SELinux its no 'extra' overhead to EPERM
> > > there instead of here (garbage in EPERM out).
> > 
> > to be honest, this is really a case of 
> > panic("This stuff is really borken")
> > 
> > if it passes some random value, what other api's does it pass a random
> > value to ?
> > 
> > (and in addition, random values to security critical APIs deserve a
> > process kill, because it could well be an exploit attempt at guessing
> > something. At least by not letting it live it's harder to get such type
> > of exploits to be able to guess things. So imo, BUG() is the right
> > answer)
> 
> Do we have any concern of a module being compiled against a new kernel
> say with cap number 35 defined and then loaded into a kernel with only
> 34 capabilities?  Do we care about that forward compatibility?  If we
> care BUG is scary.  EPERM would be the right thing since clearly on this
> kernel the process can't possibly have cap #35.
> 
> We really have 4 options (in the order I like them).
> 
> 1) do nothing (garbage in garbage out, sometimes panic sometimes not)
> 2) mask CAP_TO_INDEX (garbage in garbage out, no panic)
> 3) BUG_ON(!cap_valid(flag)) (garbage in BUG out, no panic)
> 4) WARN_ON/EPERM (garbage in EPERM out, no panic)
> 
> SELinux already sorta does #3 and #4 (we will panic if cap > 64 and will
> EPERM between the max cap and 64) but I really don't like being blamed
> when it's not my fault.  SELinux takes enough crap when people's systems
> don't work and this time its clearly not my fault, which is why I'm
> pushing this.

 :)

> If we believe the capability system should take path's 1, 2, or 4 I'm
> going to take path 4 in SELinux.  If capabilities wants to take path 3,
> I'm ok with that too.  Its going to break a lot of people's machines I'm
> afraid, but it would force ATI to fix their crap....

Assuming you have a kernel with your patch for 4, could you just run
some perf tests vs the unpatched kernel to show there's really no
meaningful performance impact?

-serge
--
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/