Message-ID: <20070417181500.GD14891@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:15:00 -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, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> > 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/$USER/root
> > 
> > or whatever.  In any case, the user cannot make user mounts except under
> > /share, and any cloned namespaces will still allow user mounts.
> 
> I don't quite understand your method.  This is how I think of it:
> 
> mount --make-rshared /
> mkdir -p /mnt/ns/$USER
> mount --rbind / /mnt/ns/$USER
> mount --make-rslave /mnt/ns/$USER

This was my main point - that the tree in which users can mount will be
a slave of /, so that propagating the "are user mounts allowed" flag
among peers is safe and intuitive.

> mount --set-flags --recursive -oallowusermnt /mnt/ns/$USER
> chroot /mnt/ns/$USER
> su - $USER
> 
> I did actually try something equivalent (without the fancy mount
> commands though), and it worked fine.  The only "problem" is the
> proliferation of mounts in /proc/mounts.  There was a recently posted
> patch in AppArmor, that at least hides unreachable mounts from
> /proc/mounts, so the user wouldn't see all those.  But it could still
> be pretty confusing to the sysadmin.
> 
> So in that sense doing it the complicated way, by first cloning the
> namespace, and then copying and sharing mounts individually which need
> to be shared could relieve this somewhat.

True.  But the kernel functionality you provide enables both ways so no
problem in either case :)

> Another point: user mounts under /proc and /sys shouldn't be allowed.
> There are files there (at least in /proc) that are seemingly writable
> by the user, but they are still not writable in the sense, that
> "normal" files are.

Good point.

> Anyway, there are lots of userspace policy issues, but those don't
> impact the kernel part.

Though it might make sense to enforce /proc and /sys not allowing user
mounts under them in the kernel.

> As for the original question of propagating the "allowusermnt" flag, I
> think it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent and documented.
> 
> Propagating some mount flags and not propagating others is
> inconsistent and confusing, so I wouldn't want that.  Currently
> remount doesn't propagate mount flags, that may be a bug, dunno.

Dave, any thoughts on safety of propagating the vfsmount read-only
flags?

-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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists