lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: unprivileged mounts git tree
Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu):
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu):
> > > Serge, thanks for spotting this: it looks indeed a nasty hole! I also
> > > agree about the solution.
> >
> > Are you implementing it, or did you want me to?
>
> I'll implement it.

Ok, thanks. I look forward to playing around with it when you publish
the resulting git tree :)

> > > But yeah, we should think this over very carefully. Especially
> > > interaction with mount propagation, which has very complicated and
> > > sometimes rather counter-intuitive semantics.
> >
> > I know we discussed before about whether a propagated mount from a
> > non-user mount to a user mount should end up being owned by the user
> > or not. I don't recall (and am not checking the code at the moment
> > as your tree is sitting elsewhere) whether we mark the propagated
> > tree with the right nosuid and nodev flags, or whether we call it
> > a user mount or not.
>
> If the destination is a user mount, then
>
> - the propagated mount(s) will be owned by the same user as the destination
> - the propagated mount(s) will inherit 'nosuid' from the destination
>
> I remember also thinking about 'nodev' and why it doesn't need similar
> treatment to 'nosuid'. The reasoning was that 'nodev' is safe as long
> as permissions are enforced, namespace shuffling cannot make it
> insecure. Does that sound correct?

Yes that sounds correct, thanks for the refresher.

-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-27 20:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site