Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)

From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:00:45 -0600

Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([email-masked]):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >> In common cap we drop the new capabilities if we are being ptraced.
> >> Look for brm->unsafe.
> >
> > Yes - that isn't the issue.
> 
> Right.  Sorry.  I saw that we set unsafe and totally
> missed that we don't act on it in that case.
> 
> > It goes back to finding a way to figure out what is inside the
> > file when the installer obviously thought we shouldn't be able
> > to read the file.
> >
> > Do we care?  <shrug>
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> I expect two lines of testing bprm->unsafe and failing
> at the right point would solve that. 

But what is the right response?  Prevent excecution?  Stop the
tracer?  Enter some one-shot mode where the whole exec appears
as one step, but tracing continues if execution continues on a
dumpable file?

-serge