lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RESEND][PATCH v4] cgroup: Use CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to allow a process to migrate other tasks between cgroups
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:36:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I really don't know. The cgroupfs interface is a bit unfortunate in
>> that it doesn't really express the constraints. To safely migrate a
>> task, ISTM you ought to have some form of privilege over the task
>> *and* some form of privilege over the cgroup. cgroupfs only handles
>> the latter.
>>
>> CAP_CGROUP_MIGRATE ought to be okay. Or maybe cgroupfs needs to gain
>> a concept of "dangerous" cgroups and further restrict them and
>> CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should be fine for non-dangerous cgroups? I think I
>> favor the latter, but it might be nice to hear from Tejun first.
>
> If we can't do CAP_SYS_RESOURCE due to overlaps, let's go with a
> separate CAP. While for android and cgroup v1, it's nice to have a
> finer grained CAP for security control, privilege isolation in cgroup
> should also primarily done through hierarchical delegation. It
> doesn't make sense to have another system in parallel.
>
> We can't do it properly on v1 because some controllers aren't properly
> hierarchical and delegation model isn't well defined. e.g. nothing
> prevents a process from being pulled across different subtrees with
> the same delegation, but v2 can do it properly. All that's necessary
> is to make the CAP test OR'd to other perm checks instead of AND'ing
> so that the CAP just allows overriding restrictions expressed through
> delegation but it's normally possible to move processes around in
> one's own delegated subtree.

How would one be granted the right to move processes around in one's
own subtree?

Are you imagining that, if you're in /a/b and you want to move a
process that's currently in /a/b/c to /a/b/d then you're allowed to
because the target process is in your tree? If so, I doubt this has
the security properties you want -- namely, if you can cooperate with
anyone in /, even if they're unprivileged, you can break it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-06 18:02    [W:0.100 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site