Re: piping core dump to a program escapes container

[Dongsheng Yang]

On 12/09/2015 04:34 PM, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:29:13 -0600 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On 12/09/2015 10:26 AM, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> > > > On 10/25/2015 05:54 AM, Shayan Pooya wrote:
> > > > > I noticed the following core_pattern behavior in my linux box while
> > > > > running docker containers. I am not sure if it is bug, but it is
> > > > > inconsistent and not documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the core_pattern is set on the host, the containers will observe
> > > > > and use the pattern for dumping cores (there is no per cgroup
> > > > > core_pattern). According to core(5) for setting core_pattern one can:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. echo "/tmp/cores/core.%e.%p" > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> > > > > 2. echo "|/bin/custom_core /tmp/cores/ %e %p " >
> > > > > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> > > > >
> > > > > The former pattern evaluates the /tmp/cores path in the container's
> > > > > filesystem namespace. Which means, the host does not see a core file
> > > > > in /tmp/cores.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the latter evaluates the /bin/custom_core path in the global
> > > > > filesystem namespace. Moreover, if /bin/core decides to write the core
> > > > > to a path (/tmp/cores in this case as shown by the arg to
> > > > > custom_core), the path will be evaluated in the global filesystem
> > > > > namespace as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > The latter behaviour is counter-intuitive and error-prone as the
> > > > > container can fill up the core-file directory which it does not have
> > > > > direct access to (which means the core is also not accessible for
> > > > > debugging if someone only has access to the container).
> >
> >  From a container perspective it is perhaps counter intuitive from
> > the perspective of the operator of the machine nothing works specially
> > about core_pattern and it works as designed with no unusual danages.
> >
> > > > Hi Shayan,
> > > >       We found the same problem with what you described here.
> > > > Is there any document for this behaviour? I want to know is
> > > > that intentional or as you said a 'bug'. Maybe that's intentional
> > > > to provide a way for admin to collect core dumps from all containers as
> > > > Richard said. I am interested in it too.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can help here?
> > >
> > > In addition, is that a good idea to make core_pattern to be seperated
> > > in different namespace?
> >
> > The behavior was the best we could do at the time last time this issue
> > was examined.    There is enough information available to be able to
> > write a core dumping program that can reliably place your core dumps
> > in your container.
> >
> > There has not yet been an obvious namespace in which to stick
> > core_pattern, and even worse exactly how to appropriate launch a process
> > in a container has not been figured out.
> >
> > If those tricky problems can be solved we can have a core_pattern in a
> > container.  What we have now is the best we have been able to figure out
> > so far.
>
> Isn't the second option dangerous if its run in global namespace and
> settable from some other namespace/container?
>
> If a process inside a container can set /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> then it could e.g. set it to
>    echo "|/bin/rm -rf / /tmp/cores/ %e %p " > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> and kill the host (eventually itself included).
> Other command lines could do different bad things.

Yes, if you don't give a privileged to container, that's read-only
to them. But if you give containers privilege, that true as you said.
But that's similar with if you give a privilege to any of process
running in the machine. So I think it's not a problem.

Yang
> Something that would sound reasonable is to have the core dumping
> helper process run under the namespaces the process which wrote to
> /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern had.
> When some of those namespaces are gone, falling back to the namespaces
> of the process for which core is to be dumped might seem reasonable
> (or just not dumping core at all as is done when core_pipe_limit is
> exceeded).
>
> The value of core_pattern (and other core_* sysctls)  should probably belong
> to the mount namespace the proc filesystem used for setting its value
> was in - or the matching namespace of calling process when set via syscall.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> .



--
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/