RE: Hooks for MAC

From: Lachlan McIlroy (lachlanat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 30 2001 - 18:47:10 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: Hooks for MAC"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Chris Wright [mailto:chrisat_private]
    > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:17 AM
    > To: Lachlan McIlroy
    > Cc: linux-security-moduleat_private
    > Subject: Re: Hooks for MAC
    > 
    > 
    > * Lachlan McIlroy (lachlan.mcilroyat_private) wrote:
    > > 
    > > The attached patch contains hooks required for a MAC
    > > system to moderate subject-subject control.  These hooks
    > > can be used to ensure that only processes with read/write
    > > label dominance can read/write attributes of another
    > > process (ie GID, SID and scheduling parameters).  The
    > > patch was generated from the 2.4.6 tree and I will post
    > > a patch against 2.4.7 soon.
    > 
    > This patch applies fine to the current 2.4.7 tree, so don't worry
    > about making a new patch just yet.
    
    Thanks for the effort.
    
    > 
    > In all of setpgid, getpgid, getsid, and getscheduler you pass
    > the task struct and it associated pid.  This is unecessary, as
    > that's what (struct task_struct *)->pid is.  Could you please change
    > this?
    
    I'm working with SGI on this one so I included the system
    call arguments for auditing purposes.  I see that they
    are not necessary so I will remove all the pids but I
    would like to keep the pgid in setpgid.
    
    > 
    > Do you have any need for a setsid hook?
    
    The setsid system call operates on the current process
    only.  It first scans all processes to see if it can
    create a new session/group id from the current pid.  I
    don't see a need to moderate processes during the scan
    as no information about these processes is being returned
    to the user.  (... and I have no intention of starting
    another discussion about covert channels!)
    
    > 
    > The getscheduler bit (just like setscheduler) collapses the getsched
    > and getparam into one.  Do you think it would be useful to distinguish
    > the two?  In setscheduler, we could simply add the sched_param to the
    > interface...on get*...hmmm, does it really matter?
    > 
    
    For our purposes I see no need to distinguish the
    getsched and getparam calls.  Does anybody else have a
    need?
    
    The sched_param argument in getparam is an output and
    can be retreived from the task_struct if required.  The
    sched_param argument in setscheduler could be useful for
    access control and auditing so I'll add it to the
    interface.
    
    > -chris
    > 
    
    Thanks for your input Chris.
    
    ---
    Lachlan McIlroy                    Phone: +61 3 9596 4155
    Trusted Linux                        Fax: +61 3 9596 2960
    Adacel Technologies Ltd                    www.adacel.com
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 30 2001 - 18:45:23 PDT