From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
       Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
References: <20081203191706.GA16433@us.ibm.com>
	<20081203191733.GA16652@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:24:06 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20081203191733.GA16652@us.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of
	"Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:17:33 -0600")
Message-ID: <m1ej0mr3o9.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] user namespaces: require cap_set{ug}id for CLONE_NEWUSER
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 905
Lines: 22

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:

> While ideally CLONE_NEWUSER will eventually require no
> privilege, the required permission checks are currently
> not there.  As a result, CLONE_NEWUSER has the same effect
> as a setuid(0)+setgroups(1,"0").  While we already require
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN, requiring CAP_SETUID and CAP_SETGID seems
> appropriate.

This looks reasonable.  For the short term we will need a greater
set of caps to be able to do all of the interesting things.

Personally the user namespace only becomes interesting when we
start to be able to move in the other direction and remove the
set of capabilities requires to create it.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/