[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWyUYgHY53O451AdJUs9Mcjsqmr4fUzoNmYsTP1HLq+VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:06:06 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>, gnome-os-list@...me.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mclasen@...hat.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devpts: Add ptmx_uid and ptmx_gid options
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:12 AM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 16:17 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>> On tis, 2015-03-31 at 17:08 +0300, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 06:59 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I don't think that this is correct. That user can already create a
>> > > nested userns and map themselves as 0 inside it. Then they can mount
>> > > devpts.
>> >
>> > I don't mind if they create a container and control the isolated ttys in
>> > that sub container in the VPS; that's fine. I do mind if they get
>> > access to the ttys in the VPS.
>> >
>> > If you can convince me (and the rest of Linux) that the tty subsystem
>> > should be mountable by an unprivileged user generally, then what you
>> > propose is OK.
>>
>> That is controlled by the general rights to mount stuff. I.e. unless you
>> have CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the VPS container you will not be able to mount
>> devpts there. You can only do it in a subcontainer where you got
>> permissions to mount via using user namespaces.
>
> OK let me try again. Fine, if you want to speak capabilities, you've
> given a non-root user an unexpected capability (the capability of
> creating a ptmx device). But you haven't used a capability separation
> to do this, you've just hard coded it via a mount parameter mechanism.
>
> If you want to do this thing, do it properly, so it's acceptable to the
> whole of Linux, not a special corner case for one particular type of
> container.
>
> Security breaches are created when people code in special, little used,
> corner cases because they don't get as thoroughly tested and inspected
> as generally applicable mechanisms.
>
> What you want is to be able to use the tty subsystem as a non root user:
> fine, but set that up globally, don't hide it in containers so a lot
> fewer people care.
I tend to agree, and not just for the tty subsystem. This is an
attack surface issue. With unprivileged user namespaces, unprivileged
users can create mount namespaces (probably a good thing for bind
mounts, etc), network namespaces (reasonably safe by themselves),
network interfaces and iptables rules (scary), fresh
instances/superblocks of some filesystems (scariness depends on the fs
-- tmpfs is probably fine), and more.
I think we should have real controls for this, and this is mostly
Eric's domain. Eric? A silly issue that sometimes prevents devpts
from being mountable isn't a real control, though.
--Andy
>
> James
>
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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