From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@gmail.com>
Cc: Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] userns: Better restrictions on when proc and sysfs can be mounted
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:22:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a9hejgif.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE=NcrY+CzX+H4XQTdGj7CSZ98a5T=bNgT6=jGZzcjyaHb-ttw@mail.gmail.com> (Janne Karhunen's message of "Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:00:39 +0200")
Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> And another question, it looks like if we don't have proc/sys fs mounted,
>> then proc/sys will be failed to be mounted?
>
> I have been wondering the same. Was quite some illogical surprise that
> we have to be doing overlay mounts. This is the exact opposite from what
> anyone would expect.
Before I address the question of bugs I will answer the question of
semantics.
In weird cases like chroot jails it is desirable not to mount /sys and /proc
and if root sets that policy it would be unfortunate if user namespaces
overrode the policy. It limits what an attacker can accomplish.
So yes in the case of /proc and /sys the goal is to limit you to
functionality you could have had with bind mounts.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-09 5:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-27 21:44 [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] userns: Better restrictions on when proc and sysfs can be mounted Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-27 21:46 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 2/2] sysfs: Restrict mounting sysfs Eric W. Biederman
2013-08-28 19:00 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-09-23 10:33 ` James Hogan
2013-09-23 21:41 ` [PATCH] sysfs: Allow mounting without CONFIG_NET Eric W. Biederman
2013-09-24 11:25 ` James Hogan
2013-08-27 21:47 ` [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] userns: Better restrictions on when proc and sysfs can be mounted Andy Lutomirski
2013-08-27 21:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-09-01 4:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-09-03 17:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-02 6:06 ` Gao feng
2013-11-04 7:00 ` Janne Karhunen
2013-11-09 5:22 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2013-11-08 2:33 ` Gao feng
2013-11-09 5:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-11-13 7:26 ` Gao feng
2013-11-14 11:10 ` Gao feng
2013-11-14 16:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-11-15 1:16 ` Gao feng
2013-11-15 4:54 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-11-15 6:14 ` Gao feng
2013-11-15 8:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=87a9hejgif.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=janne.karhunen@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
/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