Re: CAP_SYS_ADMIN on restart(2)

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@cs.columbia.edu):
> 
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> >> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 23:21 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >>> Is sysctl to control CAP_SYS_ADMIN on restart(2) OK?
> >> If the point is not to let users even *try* restarting things if it
> >> *might* not work, then I guess this might be reasonable.  
> >>
> >> If the goal is to increase security by always requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> >> for "dangerous" operations, I fear it will be harmful.  We may have
> >> people adding features that are not considering the security impact of
> >> what they're doing just because the cases they care about all require
> >> privilege.
> > 
> > Nah, I disagree.  (Or put another way, that wouldn't be the goal)
> > There are two administrators we want to satisfy:
> > 
> > 1. the one who wants his users to do partial checkpoints, but doesn't
> > want to risk giving away any privilege at all in the process.  He'll
> > be satisified by setting restart(2) to not require cap_sys_admin,
> > and his users just won't be able to do a whole container.  A lot of
> > users will be happy with that (though no SYSVIPC support, then).
> 
> There is also a middle way: use setuid program to allow creation
> of a new namespace (under your favorite policy), then drop the
> privileges and continue as unprivileged inside that container.
> 
> IOW, don't make the initial container-creation a barrier for the
> entire operation.

That is still possible here.  But I don't think it's relevant.

What Alexey wants, I believe, is for users to be able to not have
to worry about there being exploitable bugs in restart(2) which
unprivileged users can play with.  And for the usual distro-kernel
reasons, saying use 'CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=n' is not an option.

-serge