linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux 0/3] [PATCH] userns: add sysctl "kernel.userns_group

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230531-urgestein-utensil-4420b51542c4@brauner>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 09:50:55 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     ~akihirosuda <suda.kyoto@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        containers@...ts.linux.dev, serge@...lyn.com,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, akihiro.suda.cz@....ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux 0/3] [PATCH] userns: add sysctl
 "kernel.userns_group_range"

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:58:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 2:50 PM ~akihirosuda <akihirosuda@....sr.ht> wrote:
> >
> > This sysctl limits groups who can create a new userns without
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the current userns, so as to mitigate potential kernel
> > vulnerabilities around userns.
> >
> > The sysctl value format is same as "net.ipv4.ping_group_range".
> >
> > To disable creating new unprivileged userns, set the sysctl value to "1
> > 0" in the initial userns.
> >
> > To allow everyone to create new userns, set the sysctl value to "0
> > 4294967294". This is the default value.
> >
> > This sysctl replaces "kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone" that is found in
> > Ubuntu [1] and Debian GNU/Linux.
> >
> > Link: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-
> > kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/jammy/commit?id=3422764 [1]
> 
> Given the challenges around adding access controls to userns
> operations, have you considered using the LSM support that was added
> upstream last year?  The relevant LSM hook can be found in commit
> 7cd4c5c2101c ("security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()"),
> and although only SELinux currently provides an access control
> implementation, there is no reason you couldn't add support for your
> favorite LSM, or even just a simple BPF LSM to enforce the group
> controls as you've described them here.

Yes. Please, no more sysctls...