Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> writes:
>> > That depends. Current patches check the "unprivileged submounts
>> > allowed under this mount" flag only on the requested mount and not on
>> > the propagated mounts. Do you see a problem with this?
>>
>> I think privileges of this sort should propagate. If I read what you
>> just said correctly if I have a private mount namespace I won't be able
>> to mount anything unless when it was setup the unprivileged submount
>> command was explicitly set.
>
> By design yes. Why is that a problem?
It certainly doesn't match my intuition.
Why are directory permissions not sufficient to allow/deny non-priveleged mounts?
I don't understand that contention yet.
I should probably go back and look and see how plan9 handles mount/unmount
permissions. Plan9 gets away with a lot more because it doesn't have
a suid bit and mount namespaces were always present, so they don't have
backwards compatibility problems.
My best guess at the moment is that plan9 treated mount/unmount as
completely unprivileged and used the mount namespaces to limit the
scope of what would be affected by a mount/unmount operation. I think
that may be reasonable in linux as well but it will require the
presence of a mount namespace to limit the affects of what a user can
do.
So short of a more thorough audit I believe the final semantics should
be:
- mount/unmount for non-priveleged processes should only be limited
by the mount namespace and directory permissions.
- CLONE_NEWNS should not be a privileged operation.
What prevents us from allowing these things?
- Unprivileged CLONE_NEWNS and unprivileged mounts needs resource
accounting so we don't have a denial of service attack.
- Unprivileged mounts must be limited to directories that we have
permission to modify in a way that we could get the same effect
as the mount or unmount operation in terms of what files are visible
otherwise we can mess up SUID executables.
- Anything else?
There are user space issues such as a reasonable pam module and how
to do backups. However those are user space issues.
What am I missing that requires us to add MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT?
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
