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:   Mon, 6 Nov 2017 23:42:08 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>,
        Mahesh Bandewar
         =?utf-8?B?KOCkruCkueClh+CktiDgpKzgpILgpKHgpYfgpLXgpL4=?=
         =?utf-8?B?4KSwKQ==?= <maheshb@google.com>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel-hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] userns: control
 capabilities of some user namespaces
Message-ID: <20171106224207.pdws44vorkxdf6ur@gmail.com>
References: <20171103004436.40026-1-mahesh@bandewar.net>
 <20171104235346.GA17170@mail.hallyn.com>
 <CAF2d9jg1tZz-hnVBeXm3geq7jSBt5v5w6+p5B1V-7huS4qbMBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171106150302.GA26634@mail.hallyn.com>
 <1510003994.736.0.camel@gmail.com>
 <20171106221418.GA32543@mail.hallyn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171106221418.GA32543@mail.hallyn.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:14:18PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Micay (danielmicay@gmail.com):
> > Substantial added attack surface will never go away as a problem. There
> > aren't a finite number of vulnerabilities to be found.
> 
> There's varying levels of usefulness and quality.  There is code which I
> want to be able to use in a container, and code which I can't ever see a
> reason for using there.  The latter, especially if it's also in a
> staging driver, would be nice to have a toggle to disable.
> 
> You're not advocating dropping the added attack surface, only adding a
> way of dealing with an 0day after the fact.  Privilege raising 0days can
> exist anywhere, not just in code which only root in a user namespace can
> exercise.  So from that point of view, ksplice seems a more complete
> solution.  Why not just actually fix the bad code block when we know
> about it?
> 
> Finally, it has been well argued that you can gain many new caps from
> having only a few others.  Given that, how could you ever be sure that,
> if an 0day is found which allows root in a user ns to abuse
> CAP_NET_ADMIN against the host, just keeping CAP_NET_ADMIN from them
> would suffice?  It seems to me that the existing control in
> /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone might be the better duct tape
> in that case.

I agree that /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone is the most reasonable
thing to do. This patch introduces a layer of complexity to fine-tune user
namespace creation that - in the relevant security critical scenario - should
simply be turned of entirely.

Is /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone upstreamed or is this still only
carried downstream?

From 1583358410712398683@xxx Mon Nov 06 22:44:09 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583003759650790753
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread