linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for "safe" property

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: <E1JMrXw-0000qq-O9@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:11:08 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	serue@...ibm.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
	serue@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 07/10] unprivileged mounts: add sysctl tunable for
	"safe" property

> > +	t->table[0].mode = 0644;
> 
> Yikes, this could be a problem for containers, as it's simply tied to
> uid 0, whereas tying it to a capability would let us solve it with
> capability bounds.
> 
> This might mean more urgency to get user namespaces working at least
> with sysfs, else this is a quick way around having CAP_SYS_ADMIN taken
> out of a container's capability bounding set.

I think I understand the problem, but not the solution.  How do user
namespaces going to help?

Maybe sysctls just need to check capabilities, instead of uids.  I
think that would make a lot of sense anyway.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/