[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a9hejgif.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:22:48 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com>
Cc: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] userns: Better restrictions on when proc and sysfs can be mounted
Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@...il.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> And another question, it looks like if we don't have proc/sys fs mounted,
>> then proc/sys will be failed to be mounted?
>
> I have been wondering the same. Was quite some illogical surprise that
> we have to be doing overlay mounts. This is the exact opposite from what
> anyone would expect.
Before I address the question of bugs I will answer the question of
semantics.
In weird cases like chroot jails it is desirable not to mount /sys and /proc
and if root sets that policy it would be unfortunate if user namespaces
overrode the policy. It limits what an attacker can accomplish.
So yes in the case of /proc and /sys the goal is to limit you to
functionality you could have had with bind mounts.
Eric
--
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