From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1030451AbWGNODi@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1030451AbWGNODi (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:03:38 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030452AbWGNODi
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:03:38 -0400
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:2180 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030451AbWGNODh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:03:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:02:37 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
       Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>,
       Andrey Savochkin <saw@sw.ru>, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
       Sam Vilain <sam.vilain@catalyst.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace
Message-ID: <20060714140237.GD28436@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
References: <m1fyh7eb9i.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <44B50088.1010103@fr.ibm.com> <m1psgaag7y.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <44B684A5.2040008@fr.ibm.com> <20060713174721.GA21399@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <m1mzbd1if1.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <1152815391.7650.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m1wtahz5u2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20060713214101.GB2169@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <m1y7uwyh9z.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1y7uwyh9z.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> >> Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:14 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> >> Maybe.  I really think the sane semantics are in a different uid namespace.
> >> >> So you can't assumes uids are the same.  Otherwise you can't handle open
> >> >> file descriptors or files passed through unix domain sockets.
> >> >
> >> > Eric, could you explain this a little bit more?  I'm not sure I
> >> > understand the details of why this is a problem?
> >> 
> >> Very simply.
> >> 
> >> In the presence of a user namespace.  
> >> All comparisons of a user equality need to be of the tuple (user namespace,
> > user id).
> >> Any comparison that does not do that is an optimization.
> >> 
> >> Because you can have access to files created in another user namespace it
> >> is very unlikely that optimization will apply very frequently.  The easy
> > scenario
> >> to get access to a file descriptor from another context is to consider unix
> >> domain sockets.
> >
> > What does that have to do with uids?  If you receive an fd, uids don't
> > matter in any case.  The only permission checks which happen are LSM
> > hooks, which should be uid-agnostic.
> 
> You are guest uid 0.  You get a directory file descriptor from another namespace.
> You call fchdir.
> 
> If you permission checks are not (user namespace, uid) what can't you do?

File descripters can only be passed over a unix socket, right?

So this seems to fall into the same "userspace should set things up
sanely" argument you've brought up before.

Don't get me wrong though - the idea of using in-kernel keys as
cross-namespace uid's is definately interesting.

-serge