Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 18 May 2013 14:43:57 +0300
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: A PRIV_* flag for /dev/mem?
Message-ID:  <20130518114357.GK3047@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <5196818F.8080201@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <5196818F.8080201@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 01:14:23PM -0600, Jamie Gritton wrote:
> I'm considering Alexander Leidinger's patch to make X11 work inside a 
> jail (http://leidinger.net/FreeBSD/current-patches/0_jail.diff).  It 
> allows a jail to optionally have access to /dev/io and DRI (provided the 
> requisite device files are visible in the devfs ruleset).
> 
> I'm planning on putting this under a single jail permission, which would 
> group those two together as device access that allows messing with 
> kernel memory.  It seems more complete to put /dev/mem under that same 
> umbrella, with the side benefit of letting me call it "allow.dev_mem".
> 
> Currently, access is controlled only by device file permission and a 
> securelevel check.  Jail access is allowed as long as the /dev/mem is in 
> the jail's ruleset (it isn't by default).  Adding a prison_priv_check() 
> call would allow some finer control over this.  Something like:
> 
> int
> memopen(struct cdev *dev __unused, int flags, int fmt __unused,
>      struct thread *td)
> {
>      int error;
> 
>      error = priv_check(td, PRIV_FOO);
>      if (error != 0 && (flags & FWRITE))
>          error = securelevel_gt(td->td_ucred, 0);
> 
>      return (error);
> }
> 
> The main question I'm coming up with here is, what PRIV_* flag should I 
> use.  Does PRIV_IO make sense?  PRIV_DRIVER?  Something new like 
> PRIV_KMEM?  Also, I'd appreciate if anyone familiar with this interface 
> can tell me if memopen() is the right/only place to make this change.

Why do we need the PRIV check there at all, esp. for DRM ?
Why the devfs rulesets are not enough ?

[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
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=OgYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130518114357.GK3047>