OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [patch 1/2] [RFC] Simple tamper-proof device filesystem.
Re: [patch 1/2] [RFC] Simple tamper-proof device filesystem. [message #25277 is a reply to message #25221] Wed, 19 December 2007 14:13 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
serue is currently offline  serue
Messages: 750
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@cs.columbia.edu):
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@cs.columbia.edu):
> >> I hate to bring this again, but what if the admin in the container
> >> mounts an external file system (eg. nfs, usb, loop mount from a file,
> >> or via fuse), and that file system already has a device that we would
> >> like to ban inside that container ?
> > 
> > Miklos' user mount patches enforced that if !capable(CAP_MKNOD),
> > then mnt->mnt_flags |= MNT_NODEV.  So that's no problem.
> 
> Yes, that works to disallow all device files from a mounted file system.
> 
> But it's a black and white thing: either they are all banned or allowed;
> you can't have some devices allowed and others not, depending on type
> A scenario where this may be useful is, for instance, if we some apps in
> the container to execute withing a pre-made chroot (sub)tree within that
> container.

Yes, it's workable short-term, and we've always said that a more
complete solution would be worked on later, as people have time.

> > But that's been pulled out of -mm! ?  Crap.
> > 
> >> Since anyway we will have to keep a white- (or black-) list of devices
> >> that are permitted in a container, and that list may change even change
> >> per container -- why not enforce the access control at the VFS layer ?
> >> It's safer in the long run.
> > 
> > By that you mean more along the lines of Pavel's patch than my whitelist
> > LSM, or you actually mean Tetsuo's filesystem (i assume you don't mean that
> > by 'vfs layer' :), or something different entirely?
> 
> :)
> 
> By 'vfs' I mean at open() time, and not at mount(), or mknod() time.
> Either yours or Pavel's; I tend to prefer not to use LSM as it may
> collide with future security modules.

Yeah I keep waffling.  The LSM is so simple...  but i do prefer Pavel's
patch.  Let's keep pursuing that.

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH net-2.6.25][NEIGH] Make neigh_add_timer symmetrical to neigh_del_timer
Next Topic: [PATCH] OOPS with NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP netlink socket
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Nov 28 21:29:11 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.56687 seconds