[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: unprivileged mounts git tree
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <> writes:
> >> > So in order for me as an unprivileged user to pin a dentry by mounting
> >> > over it, I have to have write permission to the dentry to begin with
> >> > as well as the dentry being under a user=hallyn mount.
> >>
> >> That second condition is interesting requiring write permission of the
> >> dentry. I thought we had obviated the need for that when we added
> >> ownership to the mounts themselves. In this case at least it shouldn't
> >> it be write permission on the directory containing the dentry.
> >
> > Oh no, it seems I'm wrong, that's not a condition. Just tested it.
> Ok. I couldn't find Mikolos's code when I looked quickly.
> What are the current rules? It sounds like my original example could apply.

Rules according to permit_mount:

if CAP_SYS_ADMIN, allowed
if fs type is not marked safe for user mounts (and not bind), -EPERM
if target is a link, -EPERM
if target is labeled with new nosubmnt flag, -EPERM
if target is not a user mount owned by current->uid, -EPERM
if recursive bind mount, -EPERM (?)

> >> This seems to mess up things like revoke.
> >
> > Hey, do we have revoke now? :)
> Periodically someone works on revoke ;)
> >> At a practical level it is a real annoyance, regardless of the security
> >> implications.
> >>
> >> As a point of comparison plan9 does not have that restriction.
> >
> > Why doesn't it have that restriction?
> I haven't heard the reason.
> > Does it always allow you to rm a mounted-over file?
> Yes.
> The implementation of mounts in plan9 is a bit different. In
> plan9 mounts are looked up by mount namespace and qid (effectively
> the inode number). So the semantics are slightly different.
> Requiring a new mount namespace if you want to see what a filesystem
> looks like without a mount on top of a given file.
> It also looks like plan9 is likely to have a unmountable and unusable mount
> if you actually delete an file, from another mount namespace.
> Linux actually has a very similar case where we can loose a mount if you rename
> the directory that contains it to be somewhere higher in the mount hierarchy
> than the location the mount was under.

Can you give an example?

> All of that said there is a very good practical justification for it all.
> In a filesystem where not all changes come through our local VFS the
> VFS cannot prevent changes to a filesystem it can only cache and respond
> to changes that do occur.
> So things like sysfs_rename_dir and sysfs_move_dir routinely bypass
> the VFS restriction against changes happening under mount points. It
> isn't a problem in practice because people don't mount on sysfs but the
> problem is very much there today.
> It looks to me like the right solution is very much to do the lazy
> unmount we do for expired mounts, and purge everything that happens

You mean if we rm something, do the same thing we do for a lazy umount?

That sounds reasonble, if the implementation is doable. And should
avoid any potential revoke issues for Pekka.

> and then we just don't have to worry about mounts causing a denial
> of service attack and life gets simpler.
> Rename is a bit trickier than unlink and rmdir in that we should allow

The rename issue here being what you mentioned above about losing a
mount if we mv something to the wrong place?

> it on the underlying filesystem and only remove the directory if the
> rename goes out of scope for the overlying mount.
> Eric

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-30 21:43    [W:0.116 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site