Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 20:40:54 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tong Zhang <ztong@vt.edu>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@dominikbrodowski.net,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, keescook@chromium.org, Dave.Martin@arm.com,
        wolffhardt.schwabe@fau.de, yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wenbo.s@samsung.com
Subject: Re: different capability from different namespace required for
 prctl_set_mm_exe_file
Message-ID: <20180925184054.GA15291@kroah.com>
References: <990D0DB4-35C7-4B7B-A938-2B984CD97E78@vt.edu>
 <20180925173745.GA20508@kroah.com>
 <20180925183427.GH15710@uranus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180925183427.GH15710@uranus>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:34:27PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 07:37:45PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 01:26:55PM -0400, Tong Zhang wrote:
> > > Kernel Version: 4.18.5
> > > 
> > > Problem Description:
> > > 
> > > We discovered inconsistent check when using prctl_set_mm_exe_file(), which is used to setup exe file link.
> > > 
> > > It is required to have capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) in prctl_set_mm().
> > > while ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) in prctl_set_mm_map().
> > > 
> > > There are two differences:
> > > 1)requiring capability from: user namespace, init namespace.
> > > 2)capability bit required is different
> > 
> > Can you submit a patch showing what you think is the correct fix here?
> 
> It is done this way on purpose. The prctl_set_mm_map is a complex call
> which carries a bunch of parameters and allowed if you're inside user-ns admin,
> in turn prctl_set_mm allows to modify settings one by one. So no, it is not
> an error but rather call specifics.

I was hoping that when the submitter went to create such a patch, they
would have realized that.  You learn more when trying to fix a problem
than when someone has to tell you the answers :)

thanks,

greg k-h