[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW-XPkBMs30vk+Aiv+jA5i7TjHOYCgz0Ud6d0geaYte=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:18:51 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Stéphane Graber <stgraber@...ntu.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
smbarber@...omium.org, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Phil Estes <estesp@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/25] fs: add is_userns_visible() helper
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:06 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:42:33PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 03:33:55PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > Introduce a helper which makes it possible to detect fileystems whose
> > > superblock is visible in multiple user namespace. This currently only
> > > means proc and sys. Such filesystems usually have special semantics so their
> > > behavior will not be changed with the introduction of fsid mappings.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm afraid I've got a bit of a hangup about the terminology here. I
> > *think* what you mean is that SB_I_USERNS_VISIBLE is an fs whose uids are
> > always translated per the id mappings, not fsid mappings. But when I see
>
> Correct!
>
> > the name it seems to imply that !SB_I_USERNS_VISIBLE filesystems can't
> > be seen by other namespaces at all.
> >
> > Am I right in my first interpretation? If so, can we talk about the
> > naming?
>
> Yep, your first interpretation is right. What about: wants_idmaps()
Maybe fsidmap_exempt()?
I still haven't convinced myself that any of the above is actually
correct behavior, especially when people do things like creating
setuid binaries.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists