Re: [PATCH] capabilities: Ambient capability set V1

From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
	Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@gmail.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>,
	Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: Ambient capability set V1
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:44:48 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWJCcBBGGp21C4cdtiU79K-P3t+6rFJUWcXcLR1jqrrFQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502230856400.21238@gentwo.org>

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> Ok 4.0-rc1 is out and this patch has been sitting here for a couple of
> weeks without comment after an intensive discussion about the RFCs.
>
> Since there were no objections: Is there any chance to get this into -next
> somehow?
>

At the very least, I think it needs to define and implement what
happens when a cap is added to ambient and then dropped from
permitted. We also may need LSM_UNSAFE_something to clear the ambient
set to avoid a major security issue.

I'd like to discuss (in the hallway if nothing else) at LSF/MM with
whatever other interested people will be there.

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC