From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757296AbdLWD0L (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:26:11 -0500
Received: from h2.hallyn.com ([78.46.35.8]:53770 "EHLO h2.hallyn.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1756885AbdLWD0I (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:26:08 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:26:06 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] fs: Don't remove suid for CAP_FSETID for userns
 root
Message-ID: <20171223032606.GD6837@mail.hallyn.com>
References: <cover.1512741134.git.dongsu@kinvolk.io>
 <ddf1fb9b5001e633e0022dee7fecb0ef431e851f.1512041070.git.dongsu@kinvolk.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ddf1fb9b5001e633e0022dee7fecb0ef431e851f.1512041070.git.dongsu@kinvolk.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:32:28PM +0100, Dongsu Park wrote:
> From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
> 
> Expand the check in should_remove_suid() to keep privileges for

I realize this description came from Seth, but reading it now,
'Expand' seems wrong.  Expanding a check brings to my mind making
it stricter, not looser.  How about 'Relax the check' ?

> CAP_FSETID in s_user_ns rather than init_user_ns.
> 
> Patch v4 is available: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8944621/
> 
> --EWB Changed from ns_capable(sb->s_user_ns, ) to capable_wrt_inode_uidgid

Why exactly?

This is wrong, because capable_wrt_inode_uidgid() does a check
against current_user_ns, not the  inode->i_sb->s_user_ns

> 
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>
> ---
>  fs/inode.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index fd401028..6459a437 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1749,7 +1749,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_atime);
>   */
>  int should_remove_suid(struct dentry *dentry)
>  {
> -	umode_t mode = d_inode(dentry)->i_mode;
> +	struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
> +	umode_t mode = inode->i_mode;
>  	int kill = 0;
>  
>  	/* suid always must be killed */
> @@ -1763,7 +1764,8 @@ int should_remove_suid(struct dentry *dentry)
>  	if (unlikely((mode & S_ISGID) && (mode & S_IXGRP)))
>  		kill |= ATTR_KILL_SGID;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(kill && !capable(CAP_FSETID) && S_ISREG(mode)))
> +	if (unlikely(kill && !capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(inode, CAP_FSETID) &&
> +		     S_ISREG(mode)))
>  		return kill;
>  
>  	return 0;
> -- 
> 2.13.6