From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Dongsu Park <dpark@posteo.net>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <ole>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 4/6] proc: support mounting private procfs instances inside same pid namespace
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:33:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV4SjQE_NM4=j0JgRGBjOVY4o=iu0=ruuvzSuGRUPgNbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEiveUf22RQ6awvCKJ4p5OxZCPAyhOfpLBQXFLJ=tev3zDfL+g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> We have to align procfs and modernize it to have a per mount context
>>> where at least the mount option do not propagate to all other mounts,
>>> then maybe we can continue to implement new features. One example is to
>>> require CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the init user namespace on some /proc/* which are
>>> not pids and which are are not virtualized by design, or CAP_NET_ADMIN
>>> inside userns on the net bits that are virtualized, etc.
>>> These mount options won't propagate to previous mounts, and the system
>>> will continue to be usable.
>>>
>>> Ths patch introduces the new 'limit_pids' mount option as it was also
>>> suggesed by Andy Lutomirski [1]. When this option is passed we
>>> automatically create a private procfs instance. This is not the default
>>> behaviour since we do not want to break userspace and we do not want to
>>> provide different devices IDs by default, please see [1] for why.
>>
>> I think that calling the option to make a separate instance
>> "limit_pids" is extremely counterintuitive.
>
> Ok.
>
>> My strong preference would be to make proc *always* make a separate
>> instance (unless it's a bind mount) and to make it work. If that
>> means fudging stat() output, so be it.
>
> I also agree, but as said if we change stat(), userspace won't be able
> to notice if these two proc instances are really separated, the device
> ID is the only indication here.
I re-read all the threads and I'm still not convinced I see why we
need new_instance to be non-default. It's true that the device
numbers of /proc/ns/* matter, but if you look (with stat -L, for
example), they're *already* not tied to the procfs instance.
I'm okay with adding new_instance to be on the safe side, but I'd like
it to be done in a way that we could make it become the default some
day without breaking anything. This means that we need to be rather
careful about how new_instance and hidepid interact.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-02 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-25 12:23 [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] proc: support private proc instances per pidnamespace Djalal Harouni
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] proc: add proc_fs_info struct to store proc information Djalal Harouni
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/6] proc: move /proc/{self|thread-self} dentries to proc_fs_info Djalal Harouni
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/6] proc: add helpers to set and get proc hidepid and gid mount options Djalal Harouni
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/6] proc: support mounting private procfs instances inside same pid namespace Djalal Harouni
2017-04-26 22:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-02 14:29 ` Djalal Harouni
2017-05-02 16:33 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
[not found] ` <CALCETrV4SjQE_NM4=j0JgRGBjOVY4o=iu0=ruuvzSuGRUPgNbg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-03 15:18 ` Djalal Harouni
[not found] ` <1493123038-30590-1-git-send-email-tixxdz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] proc: instantiate only pids that we can ptrace on 'limit_pids=1' mount option Djalal Harouni
2017-04-26 22:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
[not found] ` <CALCETrXM7-NBnBcXbuuhDJZyUFLT7iRfcGGvaqUhDJBGkYJgcQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-02 14:00 ` Djalal Harouni
2017-04-25 12:23 ` [PATCH RFC v2 6/6] proc: flush task dcache entries from all procfs instances Djalal Harouni
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='CALCETrV4SjQE_NM4=j0JgRGBjOVY4o=iu0=ruuvzSuGRUPgNbg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=dpark@posteo.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=tixxdz@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).