| Message ID | 1302199926-3266-2-git-send-email-john.johansen@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/security/apparmor/lsm.c b/security/apparmor/lsm.c index fa778a76..8be2cf3 100644 --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ static int apparmor_capget(struct task_struct *target, kernel_cap_t *effective, *inheritable = cred->cap_inheritable; *permitted = cred->cap_permitted; - if (!unconfined(profile)) { + if (!unconfined(profile) && !COMPLAIN_MODE(profile)) { *effective = cap_intersect(*effective, profile->caps.allow); *permitted = cap_intersect(*permitted, profile->caps.allow); }
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/748656 AppArmor is masking the capabilities returned by capget against the capabilities mask in the profile. This is wrong, in complain mode the profile has effectively all capabilities, as the profile restrictions are not being enforced, merely tested against to determine is an access is known by the profile. This can result in the wrong behavior of security conscience applications like sshd which examine their capability set, and change their behavior accordingly. In this case because of the masked capability set being returned sshd fails due to DAC checks, even when the profile is complain mode. Signed-off-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> --- security/apparmor/lsm.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)