Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:28:52 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, keescook@...omium.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, tixxdz@...il.com, luto@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, solar@...nwall.com, serge@...lyn.com, jeyu@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, corbet@....net, mingo@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 next 1/5] modules:capabilities: add request_module_cap() Quoting Theodore Ts'o (tytso@....edu): > 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" :) -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.