lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] user ns: handle file sigio
Date
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:

> From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 7/8] user ns: handle file sigio
>
> A process in one user namespace could set a fowner and sigio on a file in a
> shared vfsmount, ending up killing a task in another user namespace.
>
> Prevent this by adding a user namespace pointer to the fown_struct, and
> enforcing that a process causing a signal to be sent be in the same
> user namespace as the file owner.
>


> @@ -455,6 +460,9 @@ static const long band_table[NSIGPOLL] =
> static inline int sigio_perm(struct task_struct *p,
> struct fown_struct *fown, int sig)
> {
> + if (fown->user_ns != init_task.nsproxy->user_ns &&
> + fown->user_ns != p->nsproxy->user_ns)
> + return 0;

Why is the initial user namespace being treated specially here?
Especially when you start considering nested containers special treatment
like this is semantically a real problem, to maintain.

If we need to I can see doing something special if the process setting
fown has CAP_KILL and bypassing the security checks that way, but
hard coding rules like that when it doesn't appear we have any
experience to indicate we need the extra functionality looks
premature.

> return (((fown->euid == 0) ||
> (fown->euid == p->suid) || (fown->euid == p->uid) ||
> (fown->uid == p->suid) || (fown->uid == p->uid)) &&

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-24 19:09    [W:0.247 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site