linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/11] fs: Don't remove suid for CAP

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: <CAOssrKdse2_HKO0xweLD7uaBajZQArJ_URcLi9un6aLohqWxLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:37:12 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
To:     Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] fs: Don't remove suid for CAP_FSETID for userns root

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@...volk.io> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:32:28PM +0100, Dongsu Park wrote:
>>> From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
>>>
>>> Expand the check in should_remove_suid() to keep privileges for
>>
>> I realize this description came from Seth, but reading it now,
>> 'Expand' seems wrong.  Expanding a check brings to my mind making
>> it stricter, not looser.  How about 'Relax the check' ?
>
> Makes sense. Will do.
>
>>> CAP_FSETID in s_user_ns rather than init_user_ns.
>>>
>>> Patch v4 is available: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8944621/
>>>
>>> --EWB Changed from ns_capable(sb->s_user_ns, ) to capable_wrt_inode_uidgid
>>
>> Why exactly?
>>
>> This is wrong, because capable_wrt_inode_uidgid() does a check
>> against current_user_ns, not the  inode->i_sb->s_user_ns

I'm thoroughly confused.   s_user_ns is supposed to be about the
usernamespace the filesystem perceives to be in, right?  How does that
come into play when checking permissions to do something?

Thanks,
Miklos