writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
$ cat /proc/self/uid_map
0 1000 1
1 100000 65536
$ unshare -U sleep 100 &
[1] 1029703
$ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
0 0 100
tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
$ cat /proc/self/uid_map
0 1000 1
1 110000 65536
$ unshare -U sleep 100 &
[1] 1552
$ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
0 0 100
$ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
0 0 1
1 1 99
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
---
kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
--- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
@@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
.show = projid_m_show,
};
+static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
+ struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
+ struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
+{
+ unsigned int idx;
+
+ overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
+
+ /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
+ for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
+ struct uid_gid_extent *prev;
+ u32 first, last, prev_last, size;
+
+ if (parent_map->nr_extents <= UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS)
+ prev = &parent_map->extent[idx];
+ else
+ prev = &parent_map->forward[idx];
+
+ first = extent->lower_first;
+ last = extent->lower_first + extent->count - 1;
+ prev_last = prev->first + prev->count - 1;
+
+ if ((first <= prev_last) && (last > prev_last)) {
+ size = prev_last - first + 1;
+
+ overflow_extent->first = extent->first + size;
+ overflow_extent->lower_first = extent->lower_first + size;
+ overflow_extent->count = extent->count - size;
+
+ extent->count = size;
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+}
+
static bool mappings_overlap(struct uid_gid_map *new_map,
struct uid_gid_extent *extent)
{
@@ -852,6 +887,7 @@ static ssize_t map_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
struct uid_gid_map new_map;
unsigned idx;
struct uid_gid_extent extent;
+ struct uid_gid_extent overflow_extent;
char *kbuf = NULL, *pos, *next_line;
ssize_t ret;
@@ -946,18 +982,24 @@ static ssize_t map_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
extent.lower_first)
goto out;
- /* Do the ranges in extent overlap any previous extents? */
- if (mappings_overlap(&new_map, &extent))
- goto out;
+ do {
+ /* Do the ranges in extent overlap any previous extents? */
+ if (mappings_overlap(&new_map, &extent))
+ goto out;
- if ((new_map.nr_extents + 1) == UID_GID_MAP_MAX_EXTENTS &&
- (next_line != NULL))
- goto out;
+ if ((new_map.nr_extents + 1) == UID_GID_MAP_MAX_EXTENTS &&
+ (next_line != NULL))
+ goto out;
- ret = insert_extent(&new_map, &extent);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
- ret = -EINVAL;
+ split_overlapping_mappings(parent_map, &extent, &overflow_extent);
+
+ ret = insert_extent(&new_map, &extent);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+
+ extent = overflow_extent;
+ } while (overflow_extent.first != (u32) -1);
}
/* Be very certaint the new map actually exists */
if (new_map.nr_extents == 0)
--
2.28.0
Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
>
> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> 0 1000 1
> 1 100000 65536
> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> [1] 1029703
> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> 0 0 100
> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
>
> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> 0 1000 1
> 1 110000 65536
> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> [1] 1552
> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> 0 0 100
> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
> 0 0 1
> 1 1 99
>
> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
> .show = projid_m_show,
> };
>
> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
> +{
> + unsigned int idx;
> +
> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
> +
> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
Ouch!
For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
which for a user facing function is not desirable.
I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
> + struct uid_gid_extent *prev;
> + u32 first, last, prev_last, size;
> +
> + if (parent_map->nr_extents <= UID_GID_MAP_MAX_BASE_EXTENTS)
> + prev = &parent_map->extent[idx];
> + else
> + prev = &parent_map->forward[idx];
> +
> + first = extent->lower_first;
> + last = extent->lower_first + extent->count - 1;
> + prev_last = prev->first + prev->count - 1;
> +
> + if ((first <= prev_last) && (last > prev_last)) {
> + size = prev_last - first + 1;
> +
> + overflow_extent->first = extent->first + size;
> + overflow_extent->lower_first = extent->lower_first + size;
> + overflow_extent->count = extent->count - size;
> +
> + extent->count = size;
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> static bool mappings_overlap(struct uid_gid_map *new_map,
> struct uid_gid_extent *extent)
> {
> @@ -852,6 +887,7 @@ static ssize_t map_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> struct uid_gid_map new_map;
> unsigned idx;
> struct uid_gid_extent extent;
> + struct uid_gid_extent overflow_extent;
> char *kbuf = NULL, *pos, *next_line;
> ssize_t ret;
>
> @@ -946,18 +982,24 @@ static ssize_t map_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> extent.lower_first)
> goto out;
>
> - /* Do the ranges in extent overlap any previous extents? */
> - if (mappings_overlap(&new_map, &extent))
> - goto out;
> + do {
> + /* Do the ranges in extent overlap any previous extents? */
> + if (mappings_overlap(&new_map, &extent))
> + goto out;
Why should mappings_overlap be called in the loop? Will splitting an
extent create the possibility for creating overlapping mappings?
> - if ((new_map.nr_extents + 1) == UID_GID_MAP_MAX_EXTENTS &&
> - (next_line != NULL))
> - goto out;
> + if ((new_map.nr_extents + 1) == UID_GID_MAP_MAX_EXTENTS &&
> + (next_line != NULL))
> + goto out;
>
> - ret = insert_extent(&new_map, &extent);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - goto out;
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> + split_overlapping_mappings(parent_map, &extent, &overflow_extent);
> +
> + ret = insert_extent(&new_map, &extent);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + extent = overflow_extent;
> + } while (overflow_extent.first != (u32) -1);
> }
> /* Be very certaint the new map actually exists */
> if (new_map.nr_extents == 0)
Eric
Hi Eric,
[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
>
> Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
>> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
>>
>> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>> 0 1000 1
>> 1 100000 65536
>> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>> [1] 1029703
>> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>> 0 0 100
>> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
>>
>> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
>> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
>
> I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
> restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
>
> What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
we are running rootless containers in a namespace created with
newuidmap/newgidmap where the mappings look like:
$ cat /proc/self/uid_map
0 1000 1
1 110000 65536
users are allowed to create child user namespaces and specify the
mappings to use. Doing so, they often hit the issue that the mappings
cannot overlap multiple extents in the parent user namespace.
The issue could be completely addressed in user space, but to me it
looks like an implementation detail that user space should not know
about.
In addition, it would also be slower (additional read of the current
uid_map and gid_map files) and must be implemented separately in each
container runtime.
>> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>> 0 1000 1
>> 1 110000 65536
>> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>> [1] 1552
>> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>> 0 0 100
>> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
>> 0 0 1
>> 1 1 99
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
>> .show = projid_m_show,
>> };
>>
>> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
>> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
>> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int idx;
>> +
>> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
>> +
>> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
>
> Ouch!
>
> For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
> here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
>
> It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
> which for a user facing function is not desirable.
>
> I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
> Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
>
> As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
> as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
I've attempted to implement the new functionality at input validation
time to not touch the existing security checks.
I've thought the pattern for iterating the extents was fine as I've
taken it from mappings_overlap (even if it is used differently on an
unsorted array).
Thanks for the hint, I'll move the new logic when map_id_range_down() is
used and I'll send a v2.
Thanks,
Giuseppe
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:12:27PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
> > Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
> >
> > Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
> >> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
> >>
> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> >> 0 1000 1
> >> 1 100000 65536
> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> >> [1] 1029703
> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> >> 0 0 100
> >> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
> >>
> >> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
> >> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
> >
> > I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
> > restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
> >
> > What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
>
> we are running rootless containers in a namespace created with
> newuidmap/newgidmap where the mappings look like:
>
> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> 0 1000 1
> 1 110000 65536
>
> users are allowed to create child user namespaces and specify the
> mappings to use. Doing so, they often hit the issue that the mappings
> cannot overlap multiple extents in the parent user namespace.
>
> The issue could be completely addressed in user space, but to me it
> looks like an implementation detail that user space should not know
> about.
> In addition, it would also be slower (additional read of the current
> uid_map and gid_map files) and must be implemented separately in each
> container runtime.
>
> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> >> 0 1000 1
> >> 1 110000 65536
> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> >> [1] 1552
> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> >> 0 0 100
> >> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
> >> 0 0 1
> >> 1 1 99
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
> >> .show = projid_m_show,
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned int idx;
> >> +
> >> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
> >> +
> >> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
> >> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
> >
> > Ouch!
> >
> > For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
> > here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
> >
> > It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
> > which for a user facing function is not desirable.
> >
> > I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
> > Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
> >
> > As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
> > as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
>
> I've attempted to implement the new functionality at input validation
> time to not touch the existing security checks.
>
> I've thought the pattern for iterating the extents was fine as I've
> taken it from mappings_overlap (even if it is used differently on an
> unsorted array).
>
> Thanks for the hint, I'll move the new logic when map_id_range_down() is
> used and I'll send a v2.
Hi,
sorry if I miseed it. Did you ever send a v2?
Hi Serge,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:12:27PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>>
>> > Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
>> >
>> > Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
>> >> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
>> >>
>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>> >> 0 1000 1
>> >> 1 100000 65536
>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>> >> [1] 1029703
>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>> >> 0 0 100
>> >> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
>> >>
>> >> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
>> >> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
>> >
>> > I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
>> > restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
>> >
>> > What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
>>
>> we are running rootless containers in a namespace created with
>> newuidmap/newgidmap where the mappings look like:
>>
>> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>> 0 1000 1
>> 1 110000 65536
>>
>> users are allowed to create child user namespaces and specify the
>> mappings to use. Doing so, they often hit the issue that the mappings
>> cannot overlap multiple extents in the parent user namespace.
>>
>> The issue could be completely addressed in user space, but to me it
>> looks like an implementation detail that user space should not know
>> about.
>> In addition, it would also be slower (additional read of the current
>> uid_map and gid_map files) and must be implemented separately in each
>> container runtime.
>>
>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>> >> 0 1000 1
>> >> 1 110000 65536
>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>> >> [1] 1552
>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>> >> 0 0 100
>> >> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
>> >> 0 0 1
>> >> 1 1 99
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
>> >> ---
>> >> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> >> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> >> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
>> >> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> >> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>> >> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
>> >> .show = projid_m_show,
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
>> >> +{
>> >> + unsigned int idx;
>> >> +
>> >> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
>> >> +
>> >> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
>> >> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
>> >
>> > Ouch!
>> >
>> > For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
>> > here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
>> >
>> > It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
>> > which for a user facing function is not desirable.
>> >
>> > I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
>> > Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
>> >
>> > As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
>> > as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
>>
>> I've attempted to implement the new functionality at input validation
>> time to not touch the existing security checks.
>>
>> I've thought the pattern for iterating the extents was fine as I've
>> taken it from mappings_overlap (even if it is used differently on an
>> unsorted array).
>>
>> Thanks for the hint, I'll move the new logic when map_id_range_down() is
>> used and I'll send a v2.
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry if I miseed it. Did you ever send a v2?
no worries, the v2 is here:
https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Regards,
Giuseppe
No. Moving it to the top of my queue for tonight.
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 05:09:08PM +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Hi Serge,
>
> Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Hi Serge,
> >
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:12:27PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> >>> [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> >>>
> >>> > Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
> >>> >
> >>> > Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> >
> >>> >> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
> >>> >> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> >>> >> 0 1000 1
> >>> >> 1 100000 65536
> >>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> >>> >> [1] 1029703
> >>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> >>> >> 0 0 100
> >>> >> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
> >>> >>
> >>> >> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
> >>> >> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
> >>> >
> >>> > I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
> >>> > restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
> >>> >
> >>> > What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
> >>>
> >>> we are running rootless containers in a namespace created with
> >>> newuidmap/newgidmap where the mappings look like:
> >>>
> >>> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> >>> 0 1000 1
> >>> 1 110000 65536
> >>>
> >>> users are allowed to create child user namespaces and specify the
> >>> mappings to use. Doing so, they often hit the issue that the mappings
> >>> cannot overlap multiple extents in the parent user namespace.
> >>>
> >>> The issue could be completely addressed in user space, but to me it
> >>> looks like an implementation detail that user space should not know
> >>> about.
> >>> In addition, it would also be slower (additional read of the current
> >>> uid_map and gid_map files) and must be implemented separately in each
> >>> container runtime.
> >>>
> >>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
> >>> >> 0 1000 1
> >>> >> 1 110000 65536
> >>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
> >>> >> [1] 1552
> >>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
> >>> >> 0 0 100
> >>> >> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
> >>> >> 0 0 1
> >>> >> 1 1 99
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
> >>> >> ---
> >>> >> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >>> >> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >>> >> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
> >>> >> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >>> >> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> >>> >> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
> >>> >> .show = projid_m_show,
> >>> >> };
> >>> >>
> >>> >> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
> >>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
> >>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
> >>> >> +{
> >>> >> + unsigned int idx;
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
> >>> >> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
> >>> >
> >>> > Ouch!
> >>> >
> >>> > For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
> >>> > here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
> >>> >
> >>> > It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
> >>> > which for a user facing function is not desirable.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
> >>> > Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
> >>> >
> >>> > As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
> >>> > as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
> >>>
> >>> I've attempted to implement the new functionality at input validation
> >>> time to not touch the existing security checks.
> >>>
> >>> I've thought the pattern for iterating the extents was fine as I've
> >>> taken it from mappings_overlap (even if it is used differently on an
> >>> unsorted array).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the hint, I'll move the new logic when map_id_range_down() is
> >>> used and I'll send a v2.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sorry if I miseed it. Did you ever send a v2?
> >
> > no worries, the v2 is here:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> have you had a chance to look at the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Giuseppe
Hi Serge,
Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Serge,
>
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 05:12:27PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>>>
>>> > Nit: The tag should have been "userns:" rather than kernel.
>>> >
>>> > Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> writing to the id map fails when an extent overlaps multiple mappings
>>> >> in the parent user namespace, e.g.:
>>> >>
>>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>>> >> 0 1000 1
>>> >> 1 100000 65536
>>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>>> >> [1] 1029703
>>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>>> >> 0 0 100
>>> >> tee: /proc/1029703/uid_map: Operation not permitted
>>> >>
>>> >> To prevent it from happening, automatically split an extent so that
>>> >> each portion fits in one extent in the parent user namespace.
>>> >
>>> > I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with relaxing this
>>> > restriction, but more code does have more room for bugs to hide.
>>> >
>>> > What is the advantage of relaxing this restriction?
>>>
>>> we are running rootless containers in a namespace created with
>>> newuidmap/newgidmap where the mappings look like:
>>>
>>> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>>> 0 1000 1
>>> 1 110000 65536
>>>
>>> users are allowed to create child user namespaces and specify the
>>> mappings to use. Doing so, they often hit the issue that the mappings
>>> cannot overlap multiple extents in the parent user namespace.
>>>
>>> The issue could be completely addressed in user space, but to me it
>>> looks like an implementation detail that user space should not know
>>> about.
>>> In addition, it would also be slower (additional read of the current
>>> uid_map and gid_map files) and must be implemented separately in each
>>> container runtime.
>>>
>>> >> $ cat /proc/self/uid_map
>>> >> 0 1000 1
>>> >> 1 110000 65536
>>> >> $ unshare -U sleep 100 &
>>> >> [1] 1552
>>> >> $ printf "0 0 100\n" | tee /proc/$!/uid_map
>>> >> 0 0 100
>>> >> $ cat /proc/$!/uid_map
>>> >> 0 0 1
>>> >> 1 1 99
>>> >>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> kernel/user_namespace.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> >> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>>> >> index 87804e0371fe..b5542be2bd0a 100644
>>> >> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
>>> >> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
>>> >> @@ -706,6 +706,41 @@ const struct seq_operations proc_projid_seq_operations = {
>>> >> .show = projid_m_show,
>>> >> };
>>> >>
>>> >> +static void split_overlapping_mappings(struct uid_gid_map *parent_map,
>>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *extent,
>>> >> + struct uid_gid_extent *overflow_extent)
>>> >> +{
>>> >> + unsigned int idx;
>>> >> +
>>> >> + overflow_extent->first = (u32) -1;
>>> >> +
>>> >> + /* Split extent if it not fully contained in an extent from parent_map. */
>>> >> + for (idx = 0; idx < parent_map->nr_extents; idx++) {
>>> >
>>> > Ouch!
>>> >
>>> > For the larger tree we perform binary searches typically and
>>> > here you are walking every entry unconditionally.
>>> >
>>> > It looks like this makes the write O(N^2) from O(NlogN)
>>> > which for a user facing function is not desirable.
>>> >
>>> > I think something like insert_and_split_extent may be ok.
>>> > Incorporating your loop and the part that inserts an element.
>>> >
>>> > As written this almost doubles the complexity of the code,
>>> > as well as making it perform much worse. Which is a problem.
>>>
>>> I've attempted to implement the new functionality at input validation
>>> time to not touch the existing security checks.
>>>
>>> I've thought the pattern for iterating the extents was fine as I've
>>> taken it from mappings_overlap (even if it is used differently on an
>>> unsorted array).
>>>
>>> Thanks for the hint, I'll move the new logic when map_id_range_down() is
>>> used and I'll send a v2.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry if I miseed it. Did you ever send a v2?
>
> no worries, the v2 is here:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
have you had a chance to look at the patch?
Thanks,
Giuseppe