[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080115145919.GG4453@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:59:19 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: serue@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com, kzak@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 8/9] unprivileged mounts: propagation: inherit owner
from parent
Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> > > > > On mount propagation, let the owner of the clone be inherited from the
> > > > > parent into which it has been propagated. Also if the parent has the
> > > > > "nosuid" flag, set this flag for the child as well.
> > > >
> > > > What about nodev?
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think the nosuid thing is meant to prevent suid mounts being
> > > introduced into a "suidless" namespace. This doesn't apply to dev
> > > mounts, which are quite safe in a suidless environment, as long as the
> > > user is not able to create devices. But that should be taken care of
> > > by capability tests.
> > >
> > > I'll update the description.
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > Part of me wants to say the safest thing for now would be to refuse
> > mounts propagation from non-user mounts to user mounts.
> >
> > I assume you're thinking about a fully user-mounted chroot, where
> > the user woudl still want to be able to stick in a cdrom and have
> > it automounted under /mnt/cdrom, propagated from the root mounts ns?
>
> Right.
>
> > But then are there no devices which the user could create on a floppy
> > while inserted into his own laptop, owned by his own uid, then insert
> > into this machine, and use the device under the auto-mounted /dev/floppy
> > to gain inappropriate access?
>
> I assume, that the floppy and cdrom are already mounted with
> nosuid,nodev.
Yeah, of course, what I'm saying is no different whether the upper mount
is a user mount or not. You're right.
> The problem case is I think is if a sysadmin does some mounting in the
> initial namespace, and this is propagated into the fully user-mounted
> namespace (or chroot), so that a mount with suid binaries slips in.
> Which is bad, because the user may be able rearange the namespace, to
> trick the suid program to something it should not do.
And really this shouldn't be an issue at all - the usermount chroot
would be set up under something like /share/hallyn/root, so the admin
would have to purposely set up propagation into that tree, so this
won't be happening by accident.
> OTOH, a mount with devices can't be abused this way, since it is not
> possible to gain privileges to files/devices just by rearanging the
> mounts.
Thanks for humoring me,
-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