[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: User namespaces and keys
David Howells <> writes:

> Serge E. Hallyn <> wrote:
>> > I guess we need to look at how to mix keys and namespaces again.
>> From strictly kernel pov, at the moment, keys are strictly usable only
>> by the user in your own user namespace.
> I'm not sure that's currently completely true. Key quota maintenance is
> namespaced, and the key's owner UID/GID belong to that namespace, so that's
> okay, but:
> (*) key_task_permission() does not distinguish UIDs and GIDs from different
> namespaces.
> (*) A key can be referred to by its serial number, no matter whose namespace
> it is in, and will yield up its given UID/GID, even if these aren't
> actually meaningful in your namespace.
> This means request_key() can successfully upcall at the moment.
> I wonder if I should make the following changes:
> (1) If the key and the accessor are in different user namespaces, then skip
> the UID and GID comparisons in key_task_permission(). That means that to
> be able to access the key you'd have to possess the key and the key would
> have to grant you Possessor access, or the key would have to grant you
> Other access.
> (2) If the key and someone viewing the key description are in different
> namespaces, then indicate that the UID and the GID are -1, irrespective of
> the actual values.
> (3) When an upcall is attempting to instantiate a key, it is allowed to access
> the keys of requestor using the requestor's credentials (UID, GID, groups,
> security label). Ensure that this will be done in the requestor's user
> namespace.
> Nothing should need to be done here, since search_process_keyrings()
> switches to the requestor's creds.
> Oh, and are security labels user-namespaced?

Not at this time. The user namespace as currently merged is little more
than a place holder for a proper implementation. Serge is busily
fleshing out that proper implementation.

Until we reach the point where all checks that have historically been
"if (uid1 == uid2)" become "if ((uidns1 == uidns2) && (uid1 == uid2))"
there will be problems.

The security labels and probably lsm's in general need to be per user
namespace but we simply have not gotten that far. For the short term I
will be happy when we get a minimally usable user namespace.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-23 16:49    [W:0.087 / U:4.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site