Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:28:04 +0900
From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <>, 
	Christian Brauner <>, 
	Boris Lukashev <>, Daniel Micay <>, 
	Mahesh Bandewar <>, LKML <>, 
	Netdev <>, 
	Kernel-hardening <>, Linux API <>, 
	Kees Cook <>, Eric Dumazet <>, 
	David Miller <>
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 <> wrote:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (
>> 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.


[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.