[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUx_O7Uiyxjs8H++bAR34dSvWny+HsVzXasCVE9wHFGFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:31:45 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Cc: Stephane Graber <stgraber@...ntu.com>,
Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on tightening up user namespace creation
On Mar 7, 2016 10:06 PM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:15:25PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > - Ubuntu requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>
> No, it does not. It has temporarily re-added a sysctl which can enable
> that behavior, but it's not set by default. The reason for providing it
> is not a distrust of user namespaces in general, but because we're enabling
> some bleeding edge patches which haven't been accepted upstream yet. Once
> they're accepted upstream I expect that patch to be dropped again, unless
> it has gone upstream.
>
> Debian does afaik still have a version of a patch I'd originally written
> before user namespaces were upstream which defaulted unprivileged userns
> cloning to off. Did you mean Debian here?
I meant Ubuntu 14.04, which I tested, possibly poorly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists