[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230918-einblick-klaut-0a010e0abc70@brauner>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:15:18 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc: Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] add listmnt(2) syscall
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 04:32:04PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 2:54 AM Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > + list_for_each_entry(r, &m->mnt_mounts, mnt_child) {
> > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
> Good point. That issue was nagging at the back of my mind. Having an
> explicit flag nicely solves the issue.
Ideally we avoid multiple capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) calls by only doing it
once and saving the return value. capable() call's aren't that cheap.
Plus, we should decide whether this should trigger an audit event or
not: capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) triggers an audit event,
ns_capable_noaudit(&init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) wouldn't.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists