linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] proc: support multiple separate proc instances per pidnamespace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:16:49 +0200
From:   Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To:     Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, kirill@...temov.name,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] proc: support multiple separate proc instances
 per pidnamespace

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:22:55PM +0200, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This RFC can be applied on top of Linus' tree 89970a04d7
> 
> This RFC implements support for multiple separate proc instances inside
> the same pid namespace. This allows to solve lot of problems that
> today's use case face.
> 
> Historically procfs was tied to pid namespaces, and mount options were
> propagated to all other procfs instances in the same pid namespace. This
> solved several use cases in that time. However today we face new
> problems, there are mutliple container implementations there, some of
> them want to hide pid entries, others want to hide non-pid entries,
> others want to have sysctlfs, others want to share pid namespace with
> private procfs mounts. All these with current implementation won't work
> since all options will be propagated to all procfs mounts.
> 
> This series allow to have new instances of procfs per pid namespace where
> each instance can have its own mount option inside the same pid namespace.
> This was also suggested by Andy Lutomirski.
> 
> 
> Now:
> $ sudo mount -t proc -o unshare,hidepid=2 none /test
> 
> The option 'unshare' will allow to mount a new instance of procfs inside
> the same pid namespace.
> 
> Before:
> $ stat /proc/slabinfo
> 
>   File: ‘/proc/slabinfo’
>   Size: 0         	Blocks: 0          IO Block: 1024   regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d	Inode: 4026532046  Links: 1
> 
> $ stat /test3/slabinfo
> 
>   File: ‘/test3/slabinfo’
>   Size: 0         	Blocks: 0          IO Block: 1024   regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d	Inode: 4026532046  Links: 1
> 
> 
> After:
> $ stat /proc/slabinfo
> 
>   File: ‘/proc/slabinfo’
>   Size: 0         	Blocks: 0          IO Block: 1024   regular empty file
> Device: 4h/4d	Inode: 4026532046  Links: 1
> 
> $ stat /test3/slabinfo
> 
>   File: ‘/test3/slabinfo’
>   Size: 0         	Blocks: 0          IO Block: 1024   regular empty file
> Device: 31h/49d	Inode: 4026532046  Links: 1
> 
> 
> Any better name for the option 'unshare' ? suggestions ?
> 
> I was going to use 'version=2' but then this may sound more like a
> proc2 fs which currently impossible to implement since it will share
> locks with the old proc.
> 
> 
> Al, Eric any comments please ?

Multiple mnt_root's lead us to significant memory costs for storing dentry
of tasks. I mean what we will get as many copies of the tasks dentry as many
times we have mounted the procfs with 'unshare' flag. No?

-- 
Rgrds, legion