Re: Is PROT_SOCK still relevant?

[Richard Weinberger]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:39 PM, One Thousand Gnomes
<gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Perhaps lets consider this in another way if it is strongly held that
>> this is worth while in the default configuration: can it default off
>> in the context of selinux / other security frameworks (preferably
>> based on their detection and/or controllably settable at runtime)?
>> Those allow more powerful and finer grain control and don't need this
>> to be there as they already provide auditing on what operations and
>> port numbers should be allowed by what programs.
>
> That would be a regression and a very very bad one to have. The defaults
> need to always be the same as before - or stronger and never go back
> towards insecurity, otherwise they could make things less safe.
>
>> Or how about letting port number concerns be handled by those security
>> frameworks all together considering it is limited security?
>
> There are already half a dozen different ways to handle it from xinetd
> through setcap, to systemd spawning it, to iptables.

The root cause of Jason's issue is not the Linux kernel, it's the
shitty Android userspace.
We all know that placing hacks into the kernel is often the easiest
way to bypass such
issues but really, blame Android for not providing a sane way to solve
the problem.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/