Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752829AbbBRRGY (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:06:24 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:47989 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752604AbbBRRGV (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:06:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:06:20 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Ian Kent Cc: David Howells , Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov , Trond Myklebust , Benjamin Coddington , Al Viro , Jeff Layton , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8] KEYS: exec request-key within the requesting task's init namespace Message-ID: <20150218170620.GI4148@fieldses.org> References: <20150205023423.8382.69433.stgit@pluto.fritz.box> <20150205021553.8382.16297.stgit@pluto.fritz.box> <12365.1423149270@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1423187245.3299.37.camel@pluto.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1423187245.3299.37.camel@pluto.fritz.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1662 Lines: 42 On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 09:47:25AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 15:14 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > > > + /* If running within a container use the container namespace */ > > > + if (current->nsproxy->net_ns != &init_net) > > > > Is that a viable check? Is it possible to have a container that shares > > networking details? > > That's up for discussion. > > I thought about it and concluded that the check is probably not > sufficient for any of the cases. > > I left it like that because I'm not sure exactly what the use cases are, > hoping it promote discussion and here we are. > > I also think the current container environments don't share net > namespace with the root init net namspace, necessarily, because thy are > containers, ;) > > TBH I haven't looked at the user space container creation code but I > expect it could be done that way if it was needed, so the answer is yes > and no, ;) > > The questions then are do we need to check anything else, and what > environment should the callback use in the different cases, and what > other cases might break if we change it? > > For example, should the fs namespace also be checked for all of these > cases, since we're executing a callback, or is whatever that's set to in > the container always what's required for locating the executable. What would be the disadvantage of setting UMH_USE_NS unconditionally here? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/