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:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 23:42:09 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        trond.myklebust@...merspace.com, sfrench@...ba.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        rgb@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/27] Containers and using authenticated filesystems

Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:

> So you missed the main mailing lists for discussion of this kind of
> thing

Yeah, sorry about that.  I was primarily aiming it at Trond and Steve as I'd
like to consider how to go about interpolating request_key() into NFS and CIFS
so that they can make use of the key-related facilities that this makes
available with AFS.  And I was in a bit tight for time to mail it out before
having to go out.  I know, excuses... ;-)

> and the maintainer.

That would be me.  I maintain keyrings.

No one is listed in MAINTAINERS as owning namespaces.  If you feel that should
be you, please add a record.

> Looking at your description you are introducing a container id.

Yes.  For audit logging, which was why I cc'd Richard.

> You don't descibe which namespace your contianer id lives in.

It doesn't.  Not everything has to have a namespace.  As you yourself pointed
out, it should be globally unique, in which case the world is the namespace,
maybe even the universe;-).

> Without the container id living in a container this breaks
> nested containers and process migration aka CRIU.

As long as IDs are globally unique, why should break container migration?
Having a kernel container object might even make CRIU easier.

And what does "Without the container id living in a container" mean anyway?  I
have IDs attached to containers.  A container can see the IDs of its child
containers.  There should be no problem with nesting.

David

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ