From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:14:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20140313141422.GB18914@redhat.com> References: <1394657163-7472-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1394657163-7472-3-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <5320CAEC.6030008@amacapital.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Network Development , "David S. Miller" , Tejun Heo , ssorce@redhat.com, jkaluza@redhat.com, lpoetter@redhat.com, kay@redhat.com On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:12:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On 03/12/2014 01:46 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > >> Implement SO_PEERCGROUP along the lines of SO_PEERCRED. This returns the > >> cgroup of first mounted hierarchy of the task. For the case of client, > >> it represents the cgroup of client at the time of opening the connection. > >> After that client cgroup might change. > > > > Even if people decide that sending cgroups over a unix socket is a good > > idea, this API has my NAK in the strongest possible sense, for whatever > > my NAK is worth. > > > > IMO SO_PEERCRED is a disaster. Calling send(2) or write(2) should > > *never* imply the use of a credential. A program should always have to > > *explicitly* request use of a credential. What you want is SCM_CGROUP. > > > > (I've found privilege escalations before based on this observation, and > > I suspect I'll find them again.) > > > > > > Note that I think that you really want SCM_SOMETHING_ELSE and not > > SCM_CGROUP, but I don't know what the use case is yet. > > This might not be quite as awful as I thought. At least you're > looking up the cgroup at connection time instead of at send time. > > OTOH, this is still racy -- the socket could easily outlive the cgroup > that created it. That's a good point. What guarantees that previous cgroup was not reassigned to a different container. What if a process A opens the connection with sssd. Process A passes the file descriptor to a different process B in a differnt container. Process A exits. Container gets removed from system and new one gets launched which uses same cgroup as old one. Now process B sends a new request and SSSD will serve it based on policy of newly launched container. This sounds very similar to pid race where socket/connection will outlive the pid. Thanks Vivek