linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070417170737.GA14891@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:07:37 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	linuxram@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> > > > > > Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated
> > > > > > down its propagation tree.  Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared
> > > > > > mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical
> > > > > > shared-subtrees.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's an interesting question.  Do we want shared mounts to be
> > > > > totally identical, including mnt_flags?  It doesn't look as if
> > > > > do_remount() guarantees that currently.
> > > > 
> > > > Depends on the semantics of each of the flags. Some flags like of the
> > > > read/write flag, would not interfere with the propagation semantics
> > > > AFAICT.  But this one certainly seems to interfere.
> > > 
> > > That depends.  Current patches check the "unprivileged submounts
> > > allowed under this mount" flag only on the requested mount and not on
> > > the propagated mounts.  Do you see a problem with this?
> > 
> > Don't see a problem if the flag is propagated to all peers and slave
> > mounts. 
> > 
> > If not, I see a problem. What if the propagated mount has its flag set
> > to not do un-priviledged mounts, whereas the requested mount has it
> > allowed?
> 
> Then the mount is allowed.
> 
> It is up to the sysadmin/distro to design set up the propagations in a
> way that this is not a problem.
> 
> I think it would be much less clear conceptually, if unprivileged
> mounting would have to check propagations as well.
> 
> Miklos

I'm a bit lost about what is currently done and who advocates for what.

It seems to me the MNT_ALLOWUSERMNT (or whatever :) flag should be
propagated.  In the /share rbind+chroot example, I assume the admin
would start by doing

	mount --bind /share /share
	mount --make-slave /share
	mount --bind -o allow_user_mounts /share (or whatever)
	mount --make-shared /share

then on login, pam does

	chroot /share/$USER

or some sort of

	mount --bind /share /home/$USER/root
	chroot /home/$USER/root

or whatever.  In any case, the user cannot make user mounts except under
/share, and any cloned namespaces will still allow user mounts.

Or are you guys talking about something else?

-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/