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:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:22:29 +0100
From:   Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/3] proc: Relax check of mount visibility
Message-ID: <20210310182229.dynrgsxejnfkp3f2@example.org>
References: <cover.1613550081.git.gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
 <m1zgzwm7iv.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1zgzwm7iv.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:44:40AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > If only the dynamic part of procfs is mounted (subset=pid), then there is no
> > need to check if procfs is fully visible to the user in the new user
> > namespace.
> 
> 
> A couple of things.
> 
> 1) Allowing the mount should come in the last patch.  So we don't have a
> bisect hazard.
> 
> 2) We should document that we still require a mount of proc to match on
> atime and readonly mount attributes.

Ok. I will try to do it in v5.

> 3) If we can find a way to safely not require a previous mount of proc
> this will be much more valuable.

True, but for now I have no idea how to do it. I would prefer to move in
small steps.

-- 
Rgrds, legion