Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     "~akihirosuda" <suda.kyoto@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux.dev,
        serge@hallyn.com, brauner@kernel.org, akihiro.suda.cz@hco.ntt.co.jp
References: <168547265011.24337.4306067683997517082-0@git.sr.ht>
        <CAHC9VhQhBBPyZE24LM6KvYrET2huW-W_YYsyPndpNkn70Mu3Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:14:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQhBBPyZE24LM6KvYrET2huW-W_YYsyPndpNkn70Mu3Ug@mail.gmail.com>
        (Paul Moore's message of "Tue, 30 May 2023 17:58:48 -0400")
Message-ID: <87fs7abu0f.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux 0/3] [PATCH] userns: add sysctl
 "kernel.userns_group_range"
Precedence: bulk

Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> writes:

> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 2:50 PM ~akihirosuda <akihirosuda@git.sr.ht> wrote:
>>
>> This sysctl limits groups who can create a new userns without
>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the current userns, so as to mitigate potential kernel
>> vulnerabilities around userns.
>>
>> The sysctl value format is same as "net.ipv4.ping_group_range".
>>
>> To disable creating new unprivileged userns, set the sysctl value to "1
>> 0" in the initial userns.
>>
>> To allow everyone to create new userns, set the sysctl value to "0
>> 4294967294". This is the default value.
>>
>> This sysctl replaces "kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone" that is found in
>> Ubuntu [1] and Debian GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Link: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-
>> kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/jammy/commit?id=3422764 [1]
>
> Given the challenges around adding access controls to userns
> operations, have you considered using the LSM support that was added
> upstream last year?  The relevant LSM hook can be found in commit
> 7cd4c5c2101c ("security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()"),


Paul how have you handled the real world regression I reported against
chromium?

Paul are you aware that the LSM hook can not be used to achieve the
objective of this patchset?

> and although only SELinux currently provides an access control
> implementation, there is no reason you couldn't add support for your
> favorite LSM, or even just a simple BPF LSM to enforce the group
> controls as you've described them here.

Is there a publicly available SELinux policy that uses that LSM hook?

Eric