linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] fcntl: Add F_GETOWNER

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: <20120330144035.GC2024@moon>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:40:35 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] fcntl: Add F_GETOWNER_UIDS option

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 09:12:19AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
...
> > 
> > Yes, I wanna take a look on Eric's set first just to get right
> > "picture" of everything. And I wanted to find a minimal solution
> > with current kernel code base which could be extended in future.
> > 
> > That said I guess the current init-ns-only approach should do the
> > trick for a while. And (thanks for pointing) I need to add a test
> > if a caller which tries to obtain uids has enought credentials
> > for that (probably CAP_FOWNER), right?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure which caller you mean.  Neither f_setown nor
> f_getown require privilege right now.  Oh, you mean at restart?

I meant the dumper. Yes, at moment f_get/setown requires no privileges
but I'm not sure if uid/euid is same or less sensible information
than pid, that's why I though CAP_FOWNER might be worth to add, no?

> f_setown to someone else's uid/pid means you may cause a signal to
> be sent to them.  So CAP_KILL might be good?  You do through that
> signal get *some* info about the file writes, though not contents.
> So yeah, maybe (CAP_KILL|CAP_FOWNER).
...
> > I suspect operating with kuid's will be a way more easier.
> 
> Yeah, I keep going back and forth on which makes more sense.  But
> kuid's probably make more sense, even though they aren't what
> userspace in container will see.  When you restore, the mapping
> will give userspace what it expects;  and if you're going to
> restart in a container with a different mapping, then you'll
> have to convert the filesystem as well since its inodes will
> store kuids, so may as well also convert the kuids in the
> checkpoint image then.

Agreed (if only I'm not missimg somethig ;)

	Cyrill
--
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/