[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66e9419c6c8f9_2561f32947d@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:45:16 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Zach Walton <me@...h.us>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Allow ioctl TUNSETIFF without CAP_NET_ADMIN via seccomp?
Zach Walton wrote:
> I was debugging a seccomp profile that attempts to allow TUNSETIFF in
> a container, relevant bits:
>
> ...
> {
> "names":[
> "ioctl"
> ],
> "action":"SCMP_ACT_ALLOW",
> "args":[
> {
> "index":1,
> "value":1074025674,
> "op":"SCMP_CMP_EQ"
> },
> {
> "index":1,
> "value":2147767498,
> "op":"SCMP_CMP_EQ"
> }
> ]
> },
> ...
>
> ...but I get:
>
> Tuntap IOCTL TUNSETIFF failed [0], errno operation not permitted
>
> Looking at the code, it seems that there's an explicit check for
> CAP_NET_ADMIN, which I'd prefer not to grant the container because the
> permissions are excessive (yes, I can lock it down with seccomp but
> still...): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/3352633ce6b221d64bf40644d412d9670e7d56e3/drivers/net/tun.c#L2758-L2759
>
> Is it possible to update this check to allow TUNSETIFF operations if a
> seccomp profile allowing it is in place? (I am not a kernel developer
> and it's unlikely I could safely contribute this)
In this case seccomp would not restrict capabilities, but actually
expand them, by bypassing the standard CAP_NET_ADMIN requirement.
That sounds like it might complicate reasoning about seccomp.
Is there prior art, where kernel restrictions are actually relaxed
when relying on a privileged process allow a privileged operation
through a seccomp policy?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists