Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable namespaced file capabilities
From: Serge E. Hallyn
Date: Fri Jun 23 2017 - 14:33:31 EST
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >> On 6/23/2017 9:30 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >> >> Or maybe just security.ns.capability, taking James' comment into account.
> >> > That last one may be suitable as an option, useful for his particular
> >> > (somewhat barbaric :) use case, but it's not ok for the general solution.
> >> security.ns@uid=100.capability
> > I'm ok with this. It gives protection from older kernels, and puts
> > the 'ns@uid=' at predictable locations for security and trusted.
> >> It makes the namespace part explicit and separate from
> >> the rest of the attribute name. It also generalizes for
> >> other attributes.
> >> security.ns@uid=1000@smack=WestOfOne.SMACK64
> > Looks good to me.
> > Do we want to say that '.' ends the attribute list? That of
> > course means '.' cannot be in the attributes. Perhaps end
> > with '@@' instead? Just a thought.
> > What do others think?
> I think we have two things that will limit the allowed attributes
> 1) We need to the names of all of the xattrs when mounting a filesystem
> with s_user_ns != &init_user_ns. I haven't yet checked the patches
> to see if they do this properly.
> 2) Names of xattrs are not fully general and filesystems perform various
> tricks to encode them more densely. We should see what the games
> with xattr names do to how densely xattrs can be stored on disk.
> That matters.
> Putting the uid of the root user in the name sounds fundamental to doing
> things this way. I am not at all certain about putting smack labels and
> generally treating this as something we can add two arbitrarily.
> If nothing else this reminds me of the frequent problem in
> certifications with ouids. Arbitrary attributes tend to defeat parsers
> in a security context on a regular basis. Even the kernel command line
> parser has seen problems in this area, and it isn't security sensitive
> most of the time.
> Extensibility is good in the abstract long term sense. Extensibility in
> the here and now where we don't even know which attributes we are
> talking about scares me. I don't see how we can possibily know with
> multiple attributes which xattrs will be the one to use. As we won't
> even know which properties of the kernel to look at to match attributes.
> So while I don't mind reorganizing the order we put the information into
> the attribute. Let's keep what we place in there very specific.
Right. I'm in favor of making the syntax so that it is, in the future,
if we want it to be, extensible, but we would not be accepting generic