[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C53DE3.1070108@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:43:31 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org, bfields@...ldses.org,
bharrosh@...asas.com,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: call_usermodehelper in containers
On 2016/02/18 11:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Ccing The containers list because a related discussion is happening there
> and somehow this thread has never made it there.
>
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:28 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 11/15, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand that one. Having a preforked thread with the
>>>> proper
>>>> environment that can act like kthreadd in terms of spawning user
>>>> mode
>>>> helpers works and is simple.
>>
>> Forgive me replying to such an old thread but ...
>>
>> After realizing workqueues can't be used to pre-create threads to run
>> usermode helpers I've returned to look at this.
>
> If someone can wind up with a good implementation I will be happy.
>
>>> Can't we ask ->child_reaper to create the non-daemonized kernel thread
>>> with the "right" ->nsproxy, ->fs, etc?
>>
>> Eric, do you think this approach would be sufficient too?
>>
>> Probably wouldn't be quite right for user namespaces but should provide
>> what's needed for other cases?
>>
>> It certainly has the advantage of not having to maintain a plague of
>> processes waiting around to execute helpers.
>
> That certainly sounds attractive. Especially for the case of everyone
> who wants to set a core pattern in a container.
>
> I am fuzzy on all of the details right now, but what I do remember is
> that in the kernel the user mode helper concepts when they attempted to
> scrub a processes environment were quite error prone until we managed to
> get kthreadd(pid 2) on the scene which always had a clean environment.
>
> If we are going to tie this kind of thing to the pid namespace I
> recommend simplying denying it if you are in a user namespace without
> an approrpriate pid namespace. AKA simply not allowing thigns to be setup
> if current->pid_ns->user_ns != current->user_ns.
>
Can't be handled by simple capability like CAP_SYS_USERMODEHELPER ?
User_ns check seems not to allow core-dump-cather in host will not work if user_ns is used.
Thanks,
-Kame
Powered by blists - more mailing lists