[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 01/14] add Documentation/namespaces/user_namespace.txt
    Serge Hallyn <> wrote:

    > +Traditionally, each task is owned by a userid (uid) and belongs to one

    "userid" -> "user ID" perhaps.

    > +or more groups (gid). Both are simple numeric ids, though userspace

    Expanding the wrap column to 79 chars would reduce the number of lines, though
    I grant for this text you will get a more ragged margin.

    "ids" -> "IDs"?

    > +... The user namespace allows tasks to
    > +have different views of the uids and gids associated with tasks and
    > +other resources.

    How does this relate to UIDs/GIDs stored on disk?

    > +The user namespace is a simple heirarchical one. The system begins

    Or even a "hierarchical" one.

    I'd recommend "starts" rather than "begins".

    > +To do so, the creating task needs the CAP_SETUID, CAP_SETGID, and
    > +CAP_CHOWN capabilities, but does not need to be root.

    How about "This requires the creating task to have the ... but it does not
    need to be running as root."?

    > ... The clone(2) call will result in a new task which to the creator
    > appears to have the same credentials as itself, but which sees itself as
    > being uid and gid 0.

    How about "The clone(2) call will result in a new task which to itself appears
    to be running as uid and gid 0, but to its creator seems to have the creator's

    > ... Any task in or resource belonging to the initial user
    > namespace will, to this new task, appear to belong to uid and gid
    > -1, which is usually known as 'nobody'.

    I think ", which is usually" should probably be " - which is usually".

    > ... Opening such files will result in obtaining the 'user other'
    > permissions.

    How about "Permission to open such files will be granted according to the
    'user other' permissions."?

    Do you mean 'user other' or just 'other'?

    > ... UID comparisons will return false, and privilege will be denied.

    UID and GID both?

    You should probably be consistent about using all 'UID/GID' or all 'uid/gid'.
    I prefer the former as it's an acronym, but that's up to you.

    > When a task belonging to userid 500 in the initial user namespace

    Is 500 special? Or is this just a worked example?

    > creates a new user namespace, even though the new task will see itself
    > as belonging to uid 0, any task in the initial user namespace
    > will see it as belonging to uid 500. Therefore, uid 500 in the
    > initial user namespace will be able to kill the new task. Files
    > created by the new user will (eventually) be seen by tasks in its
    > own user namespace as belonging to uid 0, but to tasks in the initial
    > user namespace as belonging to uid 500.

    The next bit should probably be a new paragraph (or possibly inline note).

    > Note that this userid
    > mapping for the VFS is not yet implemented, though the lkml and
    > containers mailing list archives will show several previous prototypes.
    > In the end, those got hung up waiting on the concept of targeted
    > capabilities to be developed, which, thanks to the insight of Eric
    > Biederman, they finally did.

    Section heading here?

    > Other namespaces, such as UTS and network, are owned by a user
    > namespace.

    I think this is awkward because you're now overloading the term 'namespace' to
    mean two different things. I wonder if you should hyphenate "user namespace".
    Let me think about that.

    > ... When such a namespace is created, it is assigned to the user
    > namespace by which it was created. Therefore, attempts to exercise
    > privilege to resources in a network namespace can be properly validated
    > by checking whether the caller has the needed privilege targeted to the
    > user namespace owning the network namespace.

    That's a very convoluted sentence.

    > ... This is called checking
    > targeted capabilities, and is done using the 'ns_capable' function.
    > As an example, if a new task is cloned with a private user namespace but
    > no private network namespace, then the task's network namespace is owned
    > by the parent user namespace. The new task has no privilege to the
    > parent user namespace, so it will not be able to create or configure
    > network devices. If, instead, the task were cloned with both private
    > user and network namespaces, then the private network namespace is owned
    > by the private user namespace, and so root in the new user namespace
    > will have privilege targeted to the network namespace. It will be able
    > to create and configure network devices.
    > Working notes
    > =============
    > capable checks for actions related to syslog must be against the
    > init_user_ns until syslog is containerized.

    Do you mean the 'capable' function? If so, I recommend you suffix it with
    '()'. Or did you mean 'Capability checks'?

    > Same is true for reboot and power, control groups, devices, and time.
    > Perf actions (kernel/event/core.c for instance) will always be
    > constrained to init_user_ns.
    > Q:
    > Is accounting considered properly containerized wrt pidns? (it
    > appears to be). If so, then we can change the capable check in

    'capability check' or 'capable() call'? Anyone reading this ought to know what
    capable() does.

    > kernel/acct.c to 'ns_capable(current_pid_ns()->user_ns, CAP_PACCT)'
    > Q:
    > For things like nice and schedaffinity, we could allow root in a
    > container to control those, and leave only cgroups to constrain
    > the container. I'm not sure whether that is right, or whether it
    > violates admin expectations.
    > I punted on some of commoncap.c. I'm punting on xattr stuff as
    > they take dentries, not inodes.

    Rather than 'punted' you might want to use 'deferred' if that's what you meant.

    > For drivers/tty/tty_io.c and drivers/tty/vt/vt.c, we'll want to (for
    > some of them) target at the user_ns owning the tty. That will have
    > to wait until we get userns owning files straightened out.

    Target what at the user_ns?

    > We need to figure out how to label devices. Should we just toss a user_ns
    > right into struct device?

    Would that isolate a device and make it exclusively accessible by that user_ns?

    > capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN) checks are always to be against init_user_ns,
    > unless some day LSMs were to be containerized, near zero chance.

    'Containerized'? Yuck:-)

    > inode_owner_or_capable() should probably take an optional ns and
    > cap paramter. If cap is 0, then CAP_FOWNER is checked. If ns is


    > NULL, we derive the ns from inode. But if ns is provided, then
    > callers who need to derive inode_userns(inode) anyway can save a
    > few cycles.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-13 14:49    [W:0.031 / U:94.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site