[PATCH 04/10] user namespaces: enforce usernamespaces for file permission

Serge E. Hallyn serue at us.ibm.com
Fri Aug 22 19:22:10 PDT 2008

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm at xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > By itself that is not sufficient.  We need to support two inodes on the
> > same fs where both have i_uid=500 on the host fs, while in user
> > namespace X one is owned by uid 0, and another by uid 1000.
> >
> > So we need to be able to pass the filesystem an inode and a user
> > namespace, and ask for the owning uid and gids.
> >
> > Or am I (I likely am) misunderstanding?
> There are two questions.
> Does this filesystem provide mappings to user namespace X?
> What is the mapping from this filesystem to user namespace X?

That is where you and I still disagree:  I don't believe that a mapping
as such makes sense.

A mapping implies "uid 500 becomes uid 0, uid 501 becomes uid 1000",
etc.  That simply is not sufficient.  If I am going to be able to create
a new userns without privilege, then all files belonging to all uids in
the child userns must be owned by uid 500 in my parent uidns.

So I do think we will have to have something more of the format "what is
the owning uid and gid of this inode, in the context of user namespace X."
Which was the s_convert_uid_gid() in my helpers.

If we follow your userns:capability idea and then we probably can get
rid of the s_is_capable you hated so much :)


> I think we may be able to separate those two questions.
> The important idea is that we don't need to implement filesystem changes
> in the first pass.  Just have the permission check fail unconditionally
> if we are not in the init_user_ns.
> Eric

There I definately agree.

However, given this general direction, do you feel that marking an sb
with a userns the way I'm doing in patch 4/10 makes sense, using it
only to facilitate a basic "is this non-userns-aware fs in the same
userns as the task attempting to access it" check?  If not, what
alternatives do we have, given that marking vfsmounts as we've
discussed before won't be feasible?

Of course by the time we get capabilities straightened out I
suppose tagging vfsmounts might in fact be feasible  :-)

Thanks, Eric.


More information about the Containers mailing list