lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] [RFC] Simple tamper-proof device filesystem.
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@openvz.org):
> Oren Laadan wrote:
> >
> > Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@openvz.org):
> >>> Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@cs.columbia.edu):
> >>>>>> I hate to bring this again, but what if the admin in the container
> >>>>>> mounts an external file system (eg. nfs, usb, loop mount from a file,
> >>>>>> or via fuse), and that file system already has a device that we would
> >>>>>> like to ban inside that container ?
> >>>>> Miklos' user mount patches enforced that if !capable(CAP_MKNOD),
> >>>>> then mnt->mnt_flags |= MNT_NODEV. So that's no problem.
> >>>> Yes, that works to disallow all device files from a mounted file system.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's a black and white thing: either they are all banned or allowed;
> >>>> you can't have some devices allowed and others not, depending on type
> >>>> A scenario where this may be useful is, for instance, if we some apps in
> >>>> the container to execute withing a pre-made chroot (sub)tree within that
> >>>> container.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But that's been pulled out of -mm! ? Crap.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Since anyway we will have to keep a white- (or black-) list of devices
> >>>>>> that are permitted in a container, and that list may change even change
> >>>>>> per container -- why not enforce the access control at the VFS layer ?
> >>>>>> It's safer in the long run.
> >>>>> By that you mean more along the lines of Pavel's patch than my whitelist
> >>>>> LSM, or you actually mean Tetsuo's filesystem (i assume you don't mean that
> >>>>> by 'vfs layer' :), or something different entirely?
> >>>> :)
> >>>>
> >>>> By 'vfs' I mean at open() time, and not at mount(), or mknod() time.
> >>>> Either yours or Pavel's; I tend to prefer not to use LSM as it may
> >>>> collide with future security modules.
> >>> Oren, AFAIS you've seen my patches for device access controller, right?
> >
> > If you mean this one:
> > http://openvz.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/007647.html
> > then ack :)
>
> Great! Thanks.
>
> >>> Maybe we can revisit the issue then and try to come to agreement on what
> >>> kind of model and implementation we all want?
> >> That would be great, Pavel. I do prefer your solution over my LSM, so
> >> if we can get an elegant block device control right in the vfs code that
> >> would be my preference.
> >
> > I concur.
> >
> > So it seems to me that we are all in favor of the model where open()
> > of a device will consult a black/white-list. Also, we are all in favor
> > of a non-LSM implementation, Pavel's code being a good example.
>
> Thank you, Oren and Serge! I will revisit this issue then, but
> I have a vacation the next week and, after this, we have a New
> Year and Christmas holidays in Russia. So I will be able to go
> on with it only after the 7th January :( Hope this is OK for you.
>
> Besides, Andrew told that he would pay little attention to new
> features till the 2.6.24 release, so I'm afraid we won't have this
> even in -mm in the nearest months :(
>
> Thanks,
> Pavel

Cool, let me know any way I can help when you get started.

thanks,
-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-20 15:13    [W:0.307 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site