Re: [PATCH] Move console redirect to pid namespace

[Corey Minyard]

On 02/13/2013 01:08 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Bruno PrÃmont <bonbons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > CCing containers list
> >
> > On Fri, 08 February 2013 minyard@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The console redirect - ioctl(fd, TIOCCONS) - is not in a namespace,
> > > thus a container can do a redirect and grab all the I/O on the host
> > > and all container consoles.
> > >
> > > This change puts the redirect in the pid namespace.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this patch is not correct, but I'm not quite sure the
> > > best way to fix this.  I'm not 100% sure that the pid namespace is the
> > > right place, but it seemed the most reasonable of all the choices.  The
> > > other obvious choice is the mount namespace, but it didn't seem as good
> > > a fit.
> > With recent changes, tying it to init user namespace might even be
> > better.
> With recent changes this is tied to the initial user namespace.  So the
> simple solution to this and so many other similiar security problems is
> to run your container in a user namespace.
>
> The permission check currently is capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) which requires
> the caller to have the CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the initial user namespace.

I'm not sure I follow.  Are these changes in k.org, or in another 
repository someplace?

> Is there a desire to have TIOCCONS not just fail in a container but to
> have TIOCCONS work in a container specific way?

Well, my desire is for the host console to work properly if a container 
uses TIOCCONS :-).  It seems to me that the most consistent way to 
handle this is to have TIOCCONS in a container redirect the container's 
console.

> > > The other problem is that I don't think you can call fput() from
> > > destroy_pid_namespace().  That can be called from interrupt context,
> > > and I don't think fput() is safe there.  I know it's not safe in 3.4
> > > with the RT patch applied.  However, the only way I've come up with to
> > > fix it is to add a workqueue, and that seems a bit heavy for this.
> Actually getting destroy_pid_namespace out of interrupt context wouldn't
> be the worst thing in the world.

I would agree, but it would still require something like a workqueue.  
Is there a better mechanism?

-corey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/