Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230913152238.905247-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20230913152238.905247-4-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <20230917005419.397938-1-mattlloydhouse@gmail.com> <CAOssrKcECS_CvifP1vMM8YOyMW7dkGXTDTKY2CRr-fPrJk76ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230918-einblick-klaut-0a010e0abc70@brauner>
In-Reply-To: <20230918-einblick-klaut-0a010e0abc70@brauner>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:47:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQsChQO9aaY+NTtmvJgXBodvXO6rUN3d7ZyHGqitLBABw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] add listmnt(2) syscall
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:52=E2=80=AFPM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.=
org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 04:32:04PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 2:54=E2=80=AFAM Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@g=
mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > +       list_for_each_entry(r, &m->mnt_mounts, mnt_child) {
> > > > +               if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
>
>
> > Good point.  That issue was nagging at the back of my mind.  Having an
> > explicit flag nicely solves the issue.
>
> Ideally we avoid multiple capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) calls by only doing it
> once and saving the return value. capable() call's aren't that cheap.

Agreed.  The capability check doesn't do any subject/object
comparisons so calling it for each mount is overkill.  However, I
would think we would want the LSM hook called from inside the loop as
that could involve a subject (@current) and object (individual mount
point) comparison.

> Plus, we should decide whether this should trigger an audit event or
> not: capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) triggers an audit event,
> ns_capable_noaudit(&init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) wouldn't.

Why would we not want to audit the capable() call?

--=20
paul-moore.com