Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1320169 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-28 01:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-29 08:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH RFC] Introduce new security.nscapability xattr Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-28 01:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH RFC] Introduce new security.nscapability xattr "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com> - 2016-01-29 08:40 +0100
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] Introduce new security.nscapability xattr |
| Message-ID | <qVIMV-3vP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net> wrote: > I think it sounds good from a security perspective. I'm a bit late to the game, but I have a question: why should this be keyed to the *root* uid of the namespace in particular? Certainly if user foo trusts the cap bits on some file, then user foo might trust those caps to be exerted over any namespace that user foo owns, since user foo owns the namespace. But another option would be to include a list of uids and gids such that the cap bits on the file are trusted by any namespace that maps only uids and gids in the list. After all, the existence of a namespace with root user foo that also maps bar and baz along with a file with caps set means that, if baz can get to the file and permissions are set appropriately, then baz now owns bar (via any number of fs-related capabilities). So maybe bar and baz should have to be listed as well. But maybe this doesn't matter. In any event, at the end of the day, the right answer to all of this is to stop using setuid and stop using cap bits too and start using privileged daemons or other things that don't use the eternally fragile grant-privilege-on-execve mechanisms. --Andy
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qWbOW-7Sl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1320169 |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 04:36:02PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net> wrote: > > I think it sounds good from a security perspective. > > I'm a bit late to the game, but I have a question: why should this be > keyed to the *root* uid of the namespace in particular? Certainly if > user foo trusts the cap bits on some file, then user foo might trust > those caps to be exerted over any namespace that user foo owns, since > user foo owns the namespace. ... Tying it to a kuid which represents the userns->owner of any namespace in which the capability will be honored might be fine with me. Is that what you mean? So if uid 1000 creates a userns mapping uids 100000-200000, and 100000 in that container puts X=pe on /bin/foo, uid 101000 in that container runs /bin/foo with privilege X. Uid 101000 in someone else's container does not. Although, if I create two containers and provide them different uidmaps, it may well be because I want them segragated and want to minimize the changes of one container breaking out into the other. This risks breaking that. > But another option would be to include a list of uids and gids such > that the cap bits on the file are trusted by any namespace that maps > only uids and gids in the list. After all, the existence of a > namespace with root user foo that also maps bar and baz along with a > file with caps set means that, if baz can get to the file and > permissions are set appropriately, then baz now owns bar (via any > number of fs-related capabilities). So maybe bar and baz should have > to be listed as well. > > But maybe this doesn't matter. > > In any event, at the end of the day, the right answer to all of this > is to stop using setuid and stop using cap bits too and start using > privileged daemons or other things that don't use the eternally > fragile grant-privilege-on-execve mechanisms. Heh, that's why I wrote a p9auth driver a few years ago, but it was too early for such a thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web