[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170623183433.GB21137@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:34:33 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
lkp@...org, xiaolong.ye@...el.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
christian.brauner@...lbox.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable namespaced file capabilities
Quoting Stefan Berger (stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On 06/23/2017 01:07 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 11:30 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> >>>Or maybe just security.ns.capability, taking James' comment into
> >>>account.
> >>That last one may be suitable as an option, useful for his particular
> >>(somewhat barbaric :) use case, but it's not ok for the general
> >>solution.
> >>
> >>If uid 1000 was delegated the subuids 100000-199999, it should be
> >>able to write a file capability for use by his subuids, but that file
> >>capability must not apply to other subuids.
> >I don't think it's barbaric, I think it's the common use case. Let me
> >give a more comprehensible answer in terms of docker and IMA. Lets
> >suppose I'm running docker locally and in a test cloud both with userns
> >enabled.
> >
> >I build an image locally, mapping my uid (1000) to root. If I begin
> >with a standard base, each of the files has a security.ima signature.
> > Now I add my layer, which involves updating a file, so I need to write
> >a new signature to security.ima. Because I'm running user namespaced,
> >the update gets written at security.ima@...=1000 when I do a docker
> >save.
> >
> >Now supposing I deploy that image to a cloud. As a tenant, the cloud
> >gives me real uid 4531 and maps that to root. Execution of the binary
> >fails because it tries to use the underlying signature (in
> >security.ima) as there is no xattr named security.ima@...=4531
>
> Yes. An answer would be to have Docker rewrite these on the fly. It
> knows what uid the container was running as and specifically looks
> for security.ima@...=1000 or security.ima, takes the former if it
> finds, otherwise the latter or nothing.
I know many people hate this answer, but I just want to point out that
on my little laptop, while untarring a 500M images takes 9.5 seconds,
remapping all uids and gids and restoring setuid+setgid on that image
takes .01s.
It's high cpu utilization, and it's not zero time, but it's very fast,
and it's 100% safe (when done the right way, not "sudo domychown").
-serge
Powered by blists - more mailing lists