Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 0/5] proc: subset=pid: Relax check of mount visibility

[Dan Klishch <danilklishch@gmail.com>]

On 12/14/25 11:40 AM, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> But then, if I understand you correctly, this patch will not be enough
> for you. procfs with subset=pid will not allow you to have /proc/meminfo,
> /proc/cpuinfo, etc.

Hmm, I didn't think of this. sunwalker-box only exposes cpuinfo and PID
tree to the sandboxed programs (empirically, this is enough for most of
programs you want sandboxing for). With that in mind, this patch and a
FUSE providing an overlay with cpuinfo / seccomp intercepting opens of
/proc/cpuinfo / a small kernel patch with a new mount option for procfs
to expose more static files still look like a clean solution to me.

>> Also, correct me if I am wrong, installing ebpf controller requires
>> CAP_BPF in initial userns, so rootless podman will not be able to mask
>> /proc "properly" even if someone sends a patch switching it to ebpf.
> 
> You can turn on /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled.

$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled
0
$ unshare -pfr --mount-proc
$ ./proc-controller -p deny /proc/cpuinfo
libbpf: prog 'proc_access_restrict': BPF program load failed: Operation not permitted
libbpf: prog 'proc_access_restrict': failed to load: -1
libbpf: failed to load object './proc-controller.bpf.o'
proc-controller: ERROR: loading BPF object file failed

I think only packet filters are allowed to be installed by non-root.

Thanks,
Dan Klishch