Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:52:38 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next/seccomp 1/2] selftests/seccomp: Add SKIPs for
 failed unshare()
Message-ID: <202007101551.E001F7B1CE@keescook>
References: <20200710185156.2437687-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200710185156.2437687-2-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200710191023.GA2700617@cisco>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200710191023.GA2700617@cisco>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:10:23PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Running the seccomp tests as a regular user shouldn't just fail tests
> > that require CAP_SYS_ADMIN (for getting a PID namespace). Instead,
> > detect those cases and SKIP them.
> 
> But if we unshare NEWUSER at the same time as NEWPID, shouldn't we
> always be ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?

Oh! Yes, you're quite right. :)

Instead I guess I should actually check for EINVAL if CONFIG_USER_NS is
missing.

-- 
Kees Cook