linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] block: relax permission for Persistent Reservations ioctl

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:   Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:06:26 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        xiang@...nel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] block: relax permission for Persistent Reservations ioctl

On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 06:21:22PM +0800, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> When the shared storage is accessed from containers [1], it's not
> recommended to grant CAP_SYS_ADMIN to containers for access to
> Persistent Reservations in risk of container escape.
> 
> Remove the extra CAP_SYS_ADMIN permission constraint for Persistent
> Reservations ioctl which shall do no harm [2].

I think we still to check that if CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not present,
the file descriptors needs to be open for write, and we're not called
on a partition (the latter should probbaly be always checked,
as a reservation for a partitions doesn't make sense).

But in general I think relaxing this is a good idea, we just need to
be very careful.  Looking at the discussion of unprivileged nvme
command passthrough might be a good start.