From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757512AbXFTSXU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:23:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752476AbXFTSXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:23:13 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:36773 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbXFTSXM (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:23:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4679708D.2070708@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:23:09 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Lee Irwin III CC: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel Subject: Re: JIT emulator needs References: <787b0d920706072335v10d6025cwe1437194b6c60d84@mail.gmail.com> <20070619150824.GH11781@holomorphy.com> <787b0d920706192016l660dd5b0mbf300581db81ac62@mail.gmail.com> <20070620160116.GI6909@holomorphy.com> <467957CB.8020704@zytor.com> <20070620175445.GJ6909@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20070620175445.GJ6909@holomorphy.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: >>> I presumed an ELF note or extended filesystem attributes were already >>> in place for this sort of affair. It may be that the model implemented >>> is so restrictive that users are forbidden to create new executables, >>> in which case using a different model is certainly in order. Otherwise >>> the ELF note or attributes need to be implemented. > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:37:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Another thing to keep in mind, since we're talking about security >> policies in the first place, is that anything like this *MUST* be >> "opt-in" on the part of the security policy, because what we're talking >> about is circumventing an explicit security policy just based on a >> user-provided binary saying, in effect, "don't worry, I know what I'm >> doing." >> Changing the meaning of an established explicit security policy is not >> acceptable. > > This is what I had in mind with the commentary on the intentions of the > policy. Thank you for correcting my hamhanded attempt to describe it. > Right. It's important to notice that it's actually more of an issue if the user can create executables, but the policy doesn't want to allow them to run bypassing the policy. -hpa