Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] Documentation: security-bugs: explain what is and is not a security bug

On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 06:52:00AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 12:29:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:20:51AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >> > Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >> > > +* **Capability-based protection**:
> >> > > +
> >> > > +  * users not having the ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` capability may not alter the
> >> > > +    kernel's configuration, memory nor state, change other users' view of the
> >> > > +    file system layout, grant any user capabilities they do not have, nor
> >> > > +    affect the system's availability (shutdown, reboot, panic, hang, or making
> >> > > +    the system unresponsive via unbounded resource exhaustion).
> >> > 
> >> > That is pretty demonstrably not true, and will likely elicit challenges
> >> > at some point.  There are a lot of "make me root" capabilities that
> >> > enable users to do all of those things; consider CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE as an
> >> > obvious example.  I think that just about all of the capabilities will
> >> > enable at least one of those things - that's why the capabilities exist
> >> > in the first place.  So I think this needs to be written far more
> >> > generally.
> >> 
> >> You are right, there are more capabilities, but we get bug reports all
> >> the time that basically come down to "a user with CAP_SYS_ADMIN can go
> >> and do..." which are pointless for us to be handling.  Just got one a
> >> few minutes ago, so LLMs are churning this crap out quite frequently.
> >> 
> >> So any rewording of this to prevent us from getting these pointless
> >> reports would be great.
> >
> > Honestly we're seeing this through the angle of a patch that lists a
> > single paragraph but the doc is already becoming quite long. I'm a bit
> > afraid of adding long enumerations, or sentences which do not immediately
> > translate to something recognizable by reporters. Not that it cannot be
> > done, but I think the current situation warrants incremental improvements
> > by fixing what doesn't work well. And indeed most of the capabilities
> > based reports currently revolve around "I already have CAP_{SYS,NET}_ADMIN
> > and ...". That might remain a good start for now.
> 
> I definitely wouldn't argue for making it longer, and enumerating all of
> the make-me-root capabilities would be silly.  I would consider just
> replacing CAP_SYS_ADMIN with "elevated capabilities" or some such.  That
> might rule out legitimate reports where some capability provides an
> access it shouldn't, but I suspect you could live with that :)

I think it could indeed work like this, without denaturating the rest
of the paragraph and having broader coverage. Do you think you could
amend/update it ? I'm not trying to add you any burden, it's just that
it will take me more time before I provide an update :-/

Thanks,
Willy