Re: [CRIU] [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change boundaries of data, brk and stack

[Andrey Wagin]

2014-02-14 23:16 GMT+04:00 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>>> > My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
>>> >
>>> > For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
>>> > verify that you are below the appropriate rlimit at all times and no
>>> > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check is needed.  You only need CAP_SYS_RESOURCE
>>> > to exceed your per process limits.
>>> >
>>> > All you have to do is to fix the current code to properly enforce the
>>> > limits.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid what you are suggesting doesn't work.
>>>
>>> The first reason is that we can not change both boundaries in one call.
>>> But when we are restoring these attributes, we may need to move their
>>> too far.
>>
>> When this code was introduced, there were no user-namespace implementation,
>> if I remember correctly, so CAP_SYS_RESOURCE was enough barrier point
>> to prevent modifying this values by anyone. Now user-ns brings a limit --
>> we need somehow to provide a way to modify these mm fields having no
>> CAP_SYS_RESOURCE set. "Verifying rlimit" not an option here because
>> we're modifying members one by one (looking back I think this was not
>> a good idea to modify the fields in this manner).
>>
>> Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
>> to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
>> modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that all new values
>> are sane and fit rlimits, then we could (probably) deprecate old
>> api if noone except c/r camp is using it (I actually can't imagine
>> who else might need this api). Then CAP_SYS_RESOURCE requirement
>> could be ripped off. Hm? (sure touching api is always "no-no"
>> case, but maybe...)
>
> Hmm.  Let me rewind this a little bit.
>
> I want to be very stupid and ask the following.
>
> Why can't you have the process of interest do:
>         ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
>         execve(executable, args, ...);
>
>         /* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
>         /* Fix up the mostly correct process to look like it has been
>          * executing for a while.
>          */
>
> That should work, set all of the interesting fields, and works as
> non-root today.  My gut feel says do that and we can just
> deprecate/remove prctl_set_mm.

start_brk and start_stack are randomized each time. I don't understand
how execve() can restore the origin values of attributes.

>
> I am hoping we can move this conversation what makes sense from oh ick
> checkpoint/restort does not work with user namespaces.
>
> Eric
--
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/