Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
References: <1499785511-17192-1-git-send-email-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1499785511-17192-2-git-send-email-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87mv89iy7q.fsf@xmission.com> <20170712170346.GA17974@mail.hallyn.com>
 <877ezdgsey.fsf@xmission.com>
 <74664cc8-bc3e-75d6-5892-f8934404349f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170713011554.xwmrgkzfwnibvgcu@thunk.org> <87y3rscz9j.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20170713164012.brj2flnkaaks2oci@thunk.org> <87k23cb6os.fsf@xmission.com>
 <847ccb2a-30c0-a94c-df6f-091c8901eaa0@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87bmoo8bxb.fsf@xmission.com>
 <9a3010e5-ca2b-5e7a-656b-fcc14f7bec4e@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87h8yf7szd.fsf@xmission.com>
 <65dbe654-0d99-03fa-c838-5a726b462826@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <87vamv2pj0.fsf@xmission.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, lkp@01.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        tycho@docker.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
        vgoyal@redhat.com, christian.brauner@mailbox.org, amir73il@gmail.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:39:49 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87vamv2pj0.fsf@xmission.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <6eb8226e-58b7-88cc-a8e4-35df47ae5688@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2196
Lines: 52

On 07/14/2017 08:04 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 07/13/2017 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My big question right now is can you implement Ted's suggested
>>>>> restriction.  Only one security.foo or secuirty.foo@... attribute ?
>>>> We need to raw-list the xattrs and do the check before writing them. I am fairly sure this can be done.
>>>>
>>>> So now you want to allow security.foo and one security.foo@uid=<> or just a single one security.foo(@[[:print:]]*)?
>>>>
>>> The latter.
>> That case would prevent a container user from overriding the xattr on
>> the host. Is that what we want?
> Most definitely.  If a more privileged use has set secure.capable that
> is better.
>
>> For limiting the number of xattrs and
>> getting that functionality (override IMA signature for example) the
>> former seems better...
> I don't know about IMA.  But my feeling is that we will only be dealing
> with a single signing key, so I don't see how having multiple IMA xattrs
> make sense.  Could you explain that to me?

Admittedly I would need to construct and example where the user inside 
the container doesn't want to share the public key with the host on a 
file mounted from the host for some reason.

An example related to security.capability could be a Fedora Docker 
container where the container is distributed with the ping tool 
installed. The ping tool is installed with cap_net_admin,cap_net_raw+ep. 
On a normal Fedora container I cannot use this tool due to my 
capabilities bounding set not including cap_net_admin. So, I overwrite 
this and set only cap_net_raw+ep and I can use for pinging. I may loose 
some functionality on the way due to the lost cap_net_admin but I can 
now use the tool. I guess the point is one can override the capabilities 
set of a distributed container if the container is started with less 
capabilities.

    Stefan


>
>> For the former I now have the topmost patch here:
>> https://github.com/stefanberger/linux/commits/xattr_for_userns.v3
> Thank you.
>
> Eric
>