linux-kernel - Re: plan9 semantics on Linux

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]

Message-ID: <5633d335-3926-d98f-d6d7-948b1e2a0b2c@metux.net>
Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:19:48 +0000
From:   Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>
To:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: plan9 semantics on Linux - mount namespaces

On 13.02.2018 22:12, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

CC @containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org

> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I'm currently trying to implement plan9 semantics on Linux and
> yet sorting out how to do the mount namespace handling.
> 
> On plan9, any unprivileged process can create its own namespace
> and mount/bind at will, while on Linux this requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 
> What is the reason for not allowing arbitrary users to create their
> own private mount namespace ? What could go wrong here ?
> 
> IMHO, we could allow mount/bind under the following conditions:
> 
> * the process is in a private mount namespace
> * no suid-flag is honored (either force all mounts to nosuid or
>    completely mask it out)
> * only certain whitelisted filesystems allowed (eg. 9P and FUSE)
> 
> Maybe that all could be enabled by a new capability.
> 
> 
> any suggestions ?
> 
> 
> --mtx
> 


-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287