Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:28:04 +0900 From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>, Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel-hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] userns: control capabilities of some user namespaces On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com): >> single sandbox. I am not at all certain that the capabilities is the >> proper place to limit code reachability. > > Right, I keep having this gut feeling that there is another way we > should be doing that. Maybe based on ksplice or perf, or maybe more > based on subsystems. And I hope someone pursues that. But I can't put > my finger on it, and meanwhile the capability checks obviously *are* in > fact gates... > Well, I don't mind if there is a better solution available. The proposed solution is not adding too much or complex code and using a bit and a sysctl and will be sitting dormant. When we have complete solution, this addition should not be a burden to maintain because of it's non-invasive footprint. I will push the next version of the patch-set that implements Serge's finding. Thanks, --mahesh.. [PS: I'll be soon traveling again and moving to an area where connectivity will be scarce / unreliable. So please expect lot more delays in my responses.] > -serge
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.