Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] modules:capabilities: automatic module loading restriction

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 14:44 +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 00:20 +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +modules_autoload:
> > > +
> > > +A sysctl to control if modules auto-load feature is allowed or not.
> > > +This sysctl complements "modules_disabled" which is for all module
> > > +operations where this flag applies only to automatic module loading.
> > > +Automatic module loading happens when programs request a kernel feature
> > > +that is implemented by an unloaded module, the kernel automatically
> > > +runs the program pointed by "modprobe" sysctl in order to load the
> > > +corresponding module.
> > > +
> > > +When modules_autoload is set to (0), the default, there are no
> > > +restrictions.
> > > +
> > > +When modules_autoload is set to (1), processes must have CAP_SYS_MODULE
> > > +to be able to trigger a module auto-load operation, or CAP_NET_ADMIN
> > > +for modules with a 'netdev-%s' alias.
> > > +
> > > +When modules_autoload is set to (2), automatic module loading is
> > > +disabled for all. Once set, this value can not be changed.
> > 
> > I would expect a parameter 'modules_autoload' to be a boolean, so this
> > behaviour would be surprising.
> > 
> > What is the point of mode 2?ÂÂWhy would someone want to set
> > modules_disabled=0 and modules_autoload=2?
> 
> modules_disabled is too restrictive and once set it can't be changed,
> maybe that's why not all users use it.
> 
> With modules_disabled=0 and modules_autoload=2
[...]

Hmm, OK.  How about naming this modules_autoload_mode, then, so that
it's obviously not a boolean?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice
versa.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part