[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguv+7giYNpAuXE9Ja_9BEwB0-fZBVgRSeVqpzSXgQYZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:59:59 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "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 Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> The solution is also theoretically simple: mounts in unpriv namespaces
>> are marked "volatile" and are dissolved on an unlink type operation.
>>
>> Such volatile mounts would be useful in general too.
>
> Agreed.
>
> This is a problem that is a general pain with mount namespaces in
> general.
>
> I think the real technical hurdle is finding the mounts t in some random
> mount namespace. Once we can do that relatively efficiently the rest
> becomes simple.
We already have a "struct mountpoint" hashed on the dentry. Chaining
mounts on that mountpoint would be trivial. And we need a
MNT_VOLATILE flag and that's it. If we fear that traversing the list
of mounts on the dentry to check for non-volatile ones then we could
also add a separate volatile counter to struct mountpoint and a
matching flag to the dentry. But I don't think that's really
necessary.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists