Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:28:52 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <>
To: Theodore Ts'o <>, David Miller <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 1/5] modules:capabilities: add

Quoting Theodore Ts'o (
> Half the problem here is that with containers, people are changing the
> security model, because they want to let untrusted users have "root",
> without really having "root".  Part of the fundamental problem is that
> there are some well-meaning, but fundamentally misguided people, who
> have been asserting: "Containers are just as secure as VM's".
> Well, they are not.  And the sooner people get past this, the better
> off they'll be....

Just to be clear, module loading requires - and must always continue to
require - CAP_SYS_MODULE against the initial user namespace.  Containers
in user namespaces do not have that.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that containers which are not in
a user namespace are in any way secure.

(And as for the other claim, I'd prefer to stick to "VMs are in most
cases as insecure as properly configured containers" :)


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.