Re: [PATCH] [RFC] mnt: add ability to clone mntns starting with the current root

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> 2> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:30:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:12:57PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> >> > Another problem is that rootfs can't be hidden from a container, because
> >> > rootfs can't be moved or umounted.
> >> 
> >> ... which is a bug in mntns_install(), AFAICS.
> >
> > Ability to get to exposed rootfs, that is.
> 
> The container side of this argument is pretty bogus.  It only applies
> if user namespaces are not used for the container.

User namespaces are still far too restricted for many container use
cases.  We can't say "we have user namespaces so now privileged
containers can be ignored".  Yes you never should have handed the
keys to a privileged container to an untrusted person, but we do
still try to protect the host from accidental damage due to a
privileged container.

> So it is only root (and not root in a container) who can get to the
> exposed rootfs.
> 
> I have a vague memory someone actually had a real use in miminal systems
> for being able to get back to the rootfs and being able to use rootfs as
> the rootfs.  There was even a patch at that time that Andrew Morton was
> carrying for a time to allow unmounting root and get at rootfs, and to
> prevent the oops on rootfs unmount in some way.
> 
> So not only do I not think it is a bug to get back too rootfs, I think
> it is a feature that some people have expressed at least half-way sane
> uses for.

They can still do that if they want, using chroot :)

> >> > Here is an example how to get access to rootfs:
> >> > fd = open("/proc/self/ns/mnt", O_RDONLY)
> >> > umount2("/", MNT_DETACH);
> >> > setns(fd, CLONE_NEWNS)
> >> > 
> >> > rootfs may contain data, which should not be avaliable in CT-s.
> >> 
> >> Indeed.
> >
> > ... and it looks like the above is what your mangled reproducer in previous
> > patch had been made of -
> > 	fd = open("/proc/self/ns/mnt", O_RDONLY)
> > 	umount2("/", MNT_DETACH);
> > 	setns(fd, CLONE_NEWNS)
> > 	umount2("/", MNT_DETACH);
> >
> > IMO what it shows is setns() bug.  This "switch root/cwd, no matter what"
> > is wrong.
> 
> IMO the bug is allowing us to unmount things that should never be unmounted.
> 
> In a mount namespace created with just user namespace permissions we
> can't get at rootfs because MNT_LOCKED is set on the root directory
> and thus it can not be mounted.
> 
> Further if anyone has permission to call chroot and chdir on any mount
> in a mount namespace (that isn't currently covered) they can get at all
> of them that are not currently covered.  A mount namespace where no one
> can get at any uncovered filesystem seems to be the definition of
> useless and ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Now there is a bug in that MNT_DETACH today does not currently enforce
> MNT_LOCKED on submounts of the mount point that is detached. I am
> currently looking at how to construct the appropriate permission check
> to prevent that.  Unfortunately I can not disallow MNT_DETACH with
> submounts all together as that breaks too many legitimate uses.
> 
> That failure to enforce MNT_LOCKED is my mistake. I had a naive notion
> that submounts would remain mounted after a mount detach and I misread
> the code when I did the original work.  My mistake. 

--
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/