Re: call_usermodehelper in containers

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 15:54 +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> 15.11.2013 15:03, Eric W. Biederman пишет:
> > Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> writes:
> > 
> > > 12.11.2013 17:30, Jeff Layton пишет:
> > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:02:36 +0400
> > > > Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 12.11.2013 15:12, Jeff Layton пишет:
> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:47:03 -0800
> > > > > > Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:18:25AM -0500, Jeff Layton
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > We have a bit of a problem wrt to upcalls that use
> > > > > > > > call_usermodehelper
> > > > > > > > with containers and I'd like to bring this to some sort
> > > > > > > > of resolution...
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > A particularly problematic case (though there are
> > > > > > > > others) is the
> > > > > > > > nfsdcltrack upcall. It basically uses
> > > > > > > > call_usermodehelper to run a
> > > > > > > > program in userland to track some information on stable
> > > > > > > > storage for
> > > > > > > > nfsd.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I thought the discussion at the kernel summit about this
> > > > > > > issue was:
> > > > > > > 	- don't do this.
> > > > > > > 	- don't do it.
> > > > > > > 	- if you really need to do this, fix nfsd
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, I couldn't make the kernel summit so I missed that
> > > > > > discussion. I
> > > > > > guess LWN didn't cover it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In any case, I guess then that we'll either have to come up
> > > > > > with some
> > > > > > way to fix nfsd here, or simply ensure that nfsd can never
> > > > > > be started
> > > > > > unless root in the container has a full set of a full set of
> > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One sort of Rube Goldberg possibility to fix nfsd is:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - when we start nfsd in a container, fork off an extra
> > > > > > kernel thread
> > > > > >      that just sits idle. That thread would need to be a
> > > > > > descendant of the
> > > > > >      userland process that started nfsd, so we'd need to
> > > > > > create it with
> > > > > >      kernel_thread().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Have the kernel just start up the UMH program in the
> > > > > > init_ns mount
> > > > > >      namespace as it currently does, but also pass the pid
> > > > > > of the idle
> > > > > >      kernel thread to the UMH upcall.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - The program will then use /proc/<pid>/root and
> > > > > > /proc/<pid>/ns/* to set
> > > > > >      itself up for doing things properly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Note that with this mechanism we can't actually run a
> > > > > > different binary
> > > > > > per container, but that's probably fine for most purposes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmmm... Why we can't? We can go a bit further with userspace
> > > > > idea.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We use UMH some very limited number of user programs. For 2,
> > > > > actually:
> > > > > 1) /sbin/nfs_cache_getent
> > > > > 2) /sbin/nfsdcltrack
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > No, the kernel uses them for a lot more than that. Pretty much
> > > > all of
> > > > the keys API upcalls use it. See all of the callers of
> > > > call_usermodehelper. All of them are running user binaries out
> > > > of the
> > > > kernel, and almost all of them are certainly broken wrt
> > > > containers.
> > > > 
> > > > > If we convert them into proxies, which use /proc/<pid>/root
> > > > > and /proc/<pid>/ns/*, this will allow us to lookup the right
> > > > > binary.
> > > > > The only limitation here is presence of this "proxy" binaries
> > > > > on "host".
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Suppose I spawn my own container as a user, using all of this
> > > > spiffy
> > > > new user namespace stuff. Then I make the kernel use
> > > > call_usermodehelper to call the upcall in the init_ns, and then
> > > > trick
> > > > it into running my new "escape_from_namespace" program with
> > > > "real" root
> > > > privileges.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think we can reasonably assume that having the kernel
> > > > exec an
> > > > arbitrary binary inside of a container is safe. Doing so inside
> > > > of the
> > > > init_ns is marginally more safe, but only marginally so...
> > > > 
> > > > > And we don't need any significant changes in kernel.
> > > > > 
> > > > > BTW, Jeff, could you remind me, please, why exactly we need to
> > > > > use UMH to run the binary?
> > > > > What are this capabilities, which force us to do so?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Nothing _forces_ us to do so, but upcalls are very difficult to
> > > > handle,
> > > > and UMH has a lot of advantages over a long-running daemon
> > > > launched by
> > > > userland.
> > > > 
> > > > Originally, I created the nfsdcltrack upcall as a running daemon
> > > > called
> > > > nfsdcld, and the kernel used rpc_pipefs to communicate with it.
> > > > 
> > > > Everyone hated it because no one likes to have to run daemons
> > > > for
> > > > infrequently used upcalls. It's a pain for users to ensure that
> > > > it's
> > > > running and it's a pain to handle when it isn't. So, I was
> > > > encouraged
> > > > to turn that instead into a UMH upcall.
> > > > 
> > > > But leaving that aside, this problem is a lot larger than just
> > > > nfsd. We
> > > > have a *lot* of UMH upcalls in the kernel, so this problem is
> > > > more
> > > > general than just "fixing" nfsd's.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ok. So we are talking about generic approach to UMH support in a
> > > container (and/or namespace).
> > > 
> > > Actually, as far as I can see, there are more that one aspect,
> > > which is not supported.
> > > One one them is executing of the right binary. Another one is
> > > capabilities (and maybe there are more, like user namespaces), but
> > > I
> > > don't really care about them for now.
> > > Executing the right binary, actually, is not about namespaces at
> > > all. This is about lookup implementation in VFS
> > > (do_execve_common).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Would be great to unshare FS for forked UHM kthread and swap it to
> > > desired root. This will solve the problem with proper lookup.
> > > However,
> > > as far as I understand, this approach is not welcome by the
> > > community.
> > 
> > I don't understand that one.  Having a preforked thread with the
> > proper
> > environment that can act like kthreadd in terms of spawning user
> > mode
> > helpers works and is simple.  The only downside I can see is that
> > there
> > is extra overhead.
> > 
> 
> What do you mean by "simple" here? Simple to implement?
> We already have a preforked thread, called "UMH", used exactly for
> this purpose.

Is there?

Can you explain how the pre-forking happens please?

AFAICS a workqueue is used to run UMH helpers, I can't see any pre
-forking going on there and it doesn't appear to be possible to do
either.

> And, if I'm not mistaken, we are trying to discuss, how to adapt
> existent infrastructure for namespaces, don't we?
> 
> > Beyond that though for the user mode helpers spawned to populate
> > security keys it is not clear which context they should be run in,
> > even if we do have kernel threads.
> > 
> 
> Regardless of the context itself, we need a way to pass it to kernel
> thread and to put kernel thread in this context. Or I'm missing
> something?
> 
> > > This problem, probably, can be solved by constructing full binary
> > > path
> > > (i.e. not in a container, but in kernel thread root context) in
> > > UMH
> > > "init" callack. However, this will help only is the dentry is
> > > accessible from "init" root. Which is usually no true in case on
> > > mount
> > > namespaces, if I understand them right.
> > 
> > You are correct it can not be assumed that what is visible in one
> > mount
> > namespace is visible in another.  And of course in addition to
> > picking
> > the correct binary to run you have to set up a proper environment
> > for
> > that binary to run in.  It may be that it's configuration file is
> > only
> > avaiable at the expected location in the proper mount namespace,
> > even
> > if the binary is available in all of the mount namespaces.
> > 
> 
> Yes, you are right. So, this solution can help only in case of very
> specific and simple "environment-less" programs.
> So, I believe, that we should modify UMH itself to support our needs.
> But I don't see, how to make the idea more pleasant for the community.
> IOW, when I was talking about UMH in NFS implementation on Ksummit,
> Linus's answer was something like "fix NFS".
> And I can't object it, actually, because for now NFS is the only
> corner case.
> 
> Jeff said, that there are a bunch of UMH calls in kernel, but this is
> not solid enough to prove UHM changes, since nobody is trying to use
> them in containers.
> 
> So, I doubt, that we can change UMH generically without additional use
> -cases for 'containerized" UMH.
> 
> > Eric
> > 
> 
>