On Monday, August 03, 2015 06:30:13 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Paul Moore pmoore@redhat.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 10:08:14 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:49:18PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 09:39 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Mark Wielaard mjw@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209492 (an to this email) to revert the yama config setting to the upstream default. This fixes
That would make the sysctl file systemd just added on your request completely pointless and actually incorrect because changing the value wouldn't work at all.
Yes, that is a downside of the patch. You won't be able to switch the default value anymore. But if we cannot do that by installing the sysctl file in either the kernel or systemd the alternative would be to hunt down and fix all individually packages that rely on ptrace working normally. Which seems unattractive to me if the fix in the kernel is so simple.
It took some time but we eventually came up with a solution. Stephen Smalley who added the support for yama originally to the fedora kernel agrees with the approach. And Paul Moore is making sure this gets merged upstream. Attached are commits for f22, f23 and master. Please let me know if you need anything else to get these applied.
For the record, I don't really consider this a long term solution as the risks associated with ptrace() still exist. While Mark and a few others on the BZ are happy to discount the risk, I am not. However, my current workload doesn't allow me to keep arguing with Mark so I'm looking into ways to leave Yama in the kernel, but disabled by default. If someone else is able to continue fighting for ptrace restrictions at this point in time, I would suggest adding yourself to the BZ.
Also, it appears that the patch I posted last week isn't really viable upstream due to a general distaste of setting sysctl defaults with CONFIG settings. I have another thought, but I think that discussion is better had on the BZ than on this list.
Right. This is what I meant by "carrying a patch forever" in the bug. And because of that, I'm probably not going to apply this to Fedora.
I was only proposing the patch upstream; if it isn't upstream I don't want us to carry it either.
If you have a link to the upstream conversation I would appreciate it.
Unfortunately, the LSM lists appears to be having some issues at the moment, one of which is that the MARC archives do not appear current.