[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 23:26:06 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Alexander Mihalicyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>,
Mrunal Patel <mpatel@...hat.com>, Wat Lim <watl@...gle.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@...reload.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Joseph Christopher Sible <jcsible@...t.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Stephane Graber <stgraber@...ntu.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LPC 2020 Hackroom Session: summary and next steps for isolated
user namespaces
> 3. Find a way to allow setgroups() in a user namespace while keeping
> in mind the case of groups used for negative access control.
> This was suggested by Josh Triplett and Geoffrey Thomas. Their idea was to
> investigate adding a prctl() to allow setgroups() to be called in a user
> namespace at the cost of restricting paths to the most restrictive
> permission. So if something is 0707 it needs to be treated as if it's 0000
> even though the caller is not in its owning group which is used for negative
> access control (how these new semantics will interact with ACLs will also
> need to be looked into).
I should probably think this through more, but for this problem, would it
not suffice to add a new prevgroups grouplist to the struct cred, maybe
struct group_info *locked_groups, and every time an unprivileged task creates
a new user namespace, add all its current groups to this list?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists