OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall
Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall [message #18101] Sat, 07 April 2007 00:22 Go to next message
hpa is currently offline  hpa
Messages: 38
Registered: January 2007
Member
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
>>>> /etc/fstab
>>>>
>> This is by far the biggest concern I see.  I think the security implication of
>> allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood.
> 
> $ whoami
> miklos
> $ mount --bind / ~/down_under
> 
> later that day:
> # userdel -r miklos
> 
> So both the source (/) and target (~/down_under) directory must be owned 
> by the user before --bind may succeed.
> 
> There may be other implications hpa might want to fill us in.

Consider backups, for example.

	-hpa
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall [message #18107 is a reply to message #18101] Sat, 07 April 2007 03:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric Van Hensbergen is currently offline  Eric Van Hensbergen
Messages: 3
Registered: January 2007
Junior Member
On 4/6/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>>> - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
> >>>> /etc/fstab
> >>>>
> >> This is by far the biggest concern I see.  I think the security implication of
> >> allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood.
> >
> > $ whoami
> > miklos
> > $ mount --bind / ~/down_under
> >
> > later that day:
> > # userdel -r miklos
> >
>
> Consider backups, for example.
>

This is the reason why enforcing private namespaces for user mounts
makes sense.  I think it catches many of these corner cases.

          -eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Re: [patch 0/8] unprivileged mount syscall [message #18113 is a reply to message #18107] Sat, 07 April 2007 06:48 Go to previous message
Miklos Szeredi is currently offline  Miklos Szeredi
Messages: 161
Registered: April 2007
Senior Member
> On 4/6/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >>>> - users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
> > >>>> /etc/fstab
> > >>>>
> > >> This is by far the biggest concern I see.  I think the security implication of
> > >> allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood.
> > >
> > > $ whoami
> > > miklos
> > > $ mount --bind / ~/down_under
> > >
> > > later that day:
> > > # userdel -r miklos
> > >
> >
> > Consider backups, for example.
> >
> 
> This is the reason why enforcing private namespaces for user mounts
> makes sense.  I think it catches many of these corner cases.

Yes, disabling user bind mounts in the global namespace makes sense.

Enabling user fuse mounts in the global namespace still works though,
even if a little cludgy.  All these nasty corner cases have been
thought through and validated by a lot of users.

Thanks,
Miklos
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Previous Topic: Re: [PATCH] net: Add etun driver
Next Topic: Re: [PATCH] net: Add etun driver
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jul 29 22:06:52 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07558 seconds