[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:36:10 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
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 W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] capability controlled user-namespaces
Quoting Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) (maheshb@...gle.com):
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) (maheshb@...gle.com):
> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> >> > Quoting James Morris (james.l.morris@...cle.com):
> >> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> >> I meant in terms of "marking" a user ns as "controlled" type -- it's
> >> >> unnecessary jargon from an end user point of view.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, yes, that was my point in
> >> >
> >> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.1/01845.html
> >> > and
> >> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.1/02276.html
> >> >
> >> >> This may happen internally but don't make it a special case with a
> >> >> different name and don't bother users with internal concepts: simply
> >> >> implement capability whitelists with the default having equivalent
> >
> > So the challenge is to have unprivileged users be contained, while
> > allowing trusted workloads in containers created by a root user to
> > bypass the restriction.
> >
> > Now, the current proposal actually doesn't support a root user starting
> > an application that it doesn't quite trust in such a way that it *is*
> > subject to the whitelist.
>
> Well, this is not hard since root process can spawn another process
> and loose privileges before creating user-ns to be controlled by the
> whitelist.
It would have to drop cap_sys_admin for the container to be marked as
"controlled", which may prevent the container runtime from properly starting
the container.
> You need an ability to preserve the creation of user-namespaces that
> exhibit 'the uncontrolled behavior' and only trusted/privileged (root)
> user should have it which is maintained here.
>
> > Which is unfortunate. But apart from using
> > ptags or a cgroup, I can't think of a good way to get us everything we
> > want:
> >
> > 1. unprivileged users always restricted
> > 2. existing unprivileged containers become restricted when whitelist
> > is enabled
> > 3. privileged users are able to create containers which are not restricted
>
> all this is achieved by the patch-set without any changes to the
> application with the above knob.
>
> > 4. privileged users are able to create containers which *are* restricted
> >
> With this patch-set; the root user process can fork another process
> with less privileges before creating a user-ns if the exec-ed process
> cannot be trusted. So there is a way with little modification as
> opposed to nothing available at this moment for this scenario.
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.
