From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
serge@hallyn.com, eparis@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org,
eugeneteo@kernel.org, drosenberg@vsecurity.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Make it easier to harden /proc/
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:23:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103162223.30997.richard@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1lj0eepe4.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 22:17:39 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
> Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> writes:
>
> 2> Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 21:45:45 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> >> On Wednesday 16 March 2011 21:08:16 Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> > Am Mittwoch 16 März 2011, 20:55:49 schrieb Kees Cook:
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:31:47PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> > > > When containers like LXC are used a unprivileged and jailed
> >> > > > root user can still write to critical files in /proc/.
> >> > > > E.g: /proc/sys/kernel/{sysrq, panic, panic_on_oops, ... }
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This new restricted attribute makes it possible to protect such
> >> > > > files. When restricted is set to true root needs CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> >> > > > to into the file.
> >> > >
> >> > > I was thinking about this too. I'd prefer more fine-grained control
> >> > > in this area, since some sysctl entries aren't strictly controlled
> >> > > by CAP_SYS_ADMIN (e.g. mmap_min_addr is already checking
> >> > > CAP_SYS_RAWIO).
> >> > >
> >> > > How about this instead?
> >> >
> >> > Good Idea.
> >> > May we should also consider a per-directory restriction.
> >> > Every file in /proc/sys/{kernel/, vm/, fs/, dev/} needs a protection.
> >> > It would be much easier to set the protection on the parent directory
> >> > instead of protecting file by file...
> >>
> >> How does this interact with the per-namespace sysctls that Eric
> >> Biederman added a few years ago?
> >
> > Do you mean CONFIG_{UTS, UPC, USER, NET,}_NS?
> >
> >> I had expected that any dangerous sysctl would not be visible in
> >> an unpriviledge container anyway.
> >
> > No way.
> > That's why it's currently a very good idea to mount /proc/ read-only
> > into a container.
>
> However it is in the architecture. The problem is that the user
> namespace is not finished. Once finished even root with all caps in a
> container will have no more permissions than the unprivileged user that
> created the user namespace.
>
> Essentially the change is to make permissions checks become a comparison
> of the tuple (user_ns, uid) instead of just comparisons by uid. If we
> want to fix permission problems with proc and containers please let's
> focus on the completing the user namespace.
Ok. What's the current status, where can I help?
> Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-16 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-16 19:31 [PATCH] [RFC] Make it easier to harden /proc/ Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 19:55 ` Kees Cook
2011-03-16 20:08 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 20:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-03-16 20:52 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 21:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-03-16 21:04 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2011-03-16 21:07 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 21:15 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2011-03-17 10:14 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2011-03-17 10:57 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 21:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-03-16 21:23 ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2011-03-16 21:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-03-17 6:41 ` Kees Cook
2011-03-17 7:30 ` Richard Weinberger
2011-03-16 21:19 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2011-03-17 16:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-03-19 10:43 ` Richard Weinberger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201103162223.30997.richard@nod.at \
--to=richard@nod.at \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=drosenberg@vsecurity.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=eugeneteo@kernel.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox