linux-kernel - Re: DoS with unprivileged mounts

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: <520BD9E0.8050304@mit.edu>
Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:26:24 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: DoS with unprivileged mounts

On 08/14/2013 10:42 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> There's a simple and effective way to prevent unlink(2) and rename(2)
> from operating on any file or directory by simply mounting something
> on it.  In any mount instance in any namespace.
> 
> Was this considered in the unprivileged mount design?
> 
> The solution is also theoretically simple: mounts in unpriv namespaces
> are marked "volatile" and are dissolved on an unlink type operation.

I'd actually prefer the reverse: unprivileged mounts don't prevent
unlink and rename.  If the dentry goes away, then the mount could still
exist, sans underlying file.  (This is already supported on network
filesystems.)

--Andy
--
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/