[PATCH] devpts: Add ptmx_uid and ptmx_gid options

Thu May 28 17:30:39 UTC 2015

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:44 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> > <ebiederm at xmission.com> wrote:
>> > > Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Alexander Larsson <
>> > > > alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 07:06 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:12 AM, James Bottomley
>> > > > > > <James.Bottomley at hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 16:17 +0200, Alexander Larsson
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On tis, 2015-03-31 at 17:08 +0300, James Bottomley
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 06:59 -0700, Andy Lutomirski
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I don't think that this is correct.  That user can
>> > > > > > > > > > already create a
>> > > > > > > > > > nested userns and map themselves as 0 inside it.
>> > > > > > > > > >  Then they can mount
>> > > > > > > > > > devpts.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I don't mind if they create a container and control
>> > > > > > > > > the isolated ttys in
>> > > > > > > > > that sub container in the VPS; that's fine.  I do
>> > > > > > > > > mind if they get
>> > > > > > > > > access to the ttys in the VPS.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > If you can convince me (and the rest of Linux) that
>> > > > > > > > > the tty subsystem
>> > > > > > > > > should be mountable by an unprivileged user
>> > > > > > > > > generally, then what you
>> > > > > > > > > propose is OK.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > That is controlled by the general rights to mount
>> > > > > > > > stuff. I.e. unless you
>> > > > > > > > have CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the VPS container you will not be
>> > > > > > > > able to mount
>> > > > > > > > devpts there. You can only do it in a subcontainer
>> > > > > > > > where you got
>> > > > > > > > permissions to mount via using user namespaces.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > OK let me try again.  Fine, if you want to speak
>> > > > > > > capabilities, you've
>> > > > > > > given a non-root user an unexpected capability (the
>> > > > > > > capability of
>> > > > > > > creating a ptmx device).  But you haven't used a
>> > > > > > > capability separation
>> > > > > > > to do this, you've just hard coded it via a mount
>> > > > > > > parameter mechanism.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > If you want to do this thing, do it properly, so it's
>> > > > > > > acceptable to the
>> > > > > > > whole of Linux, not a special corner case for one
>> > > > > > > particular type of
>> > > > > > > container.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Security breaches are created when people code in
>> > > > > > > special, little used,
>> > > > > > > corner cases because they don't get as thoroughly tested
>> > > > > > > and inspected
>> > > > > > > as generally applicable mechanisms.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What you want is to be able to use the tty subsystem as a
>> > > > > > > non root user:
>> > > > > > > fine, but set that up globally, don't hide it in
>> > > > > > > containers so a lot
>> > > > > > > fewer people care.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I tend to agree, and not just for the tty subsystem.  This
>> > > > > > is an
>> > > > > > attack surface issue.  With unprivileged user namespaces,
>> > > > > > unprivileged
>> > > > > > users can create mount namespaces (probably a good thing
>> > > > > > for bind
>> > > > > > mounts, etc), network namespaces (reasonably safe by
>> > > > > > themselves),
>> > > > > > network interfaces and iptables rules (scary), fresh
>> > > > > > instances/superblocks of some filesystems (scariness
>> > > > > > depends on the fs
>> > > > > > -- tmpfs is probably fine), and more.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think we should have real controls for this, and this is
>> > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > Eric's domain.  Eric?  A silly issue that sometimes
>> > > > > > prevents devpts
>> > > > > > from being mountable isn't a real control, though.
>> > >
>> > > I thought the controls for limiting how much of the userspace API
>> > > an application could use were called seccomp and seccomp2.
>> > >
>> > > Do we need something like a PAM module so that we can set up
>> > > these
>> > > controls during login?
>> > >
>> > > > > I'm honestly surprised that non-root is allowed to mount
>> > > > > things in
>> > > > > general with user namespaces. This was long disabled use for
>> > > > > non-root in
>> > > > > Fedora, but it is now enabled.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For instance, using loopback mounted files you could probably
>> > > > > attack
>> > > > > some of the less well tested filesystem implementations by
>> > > > > feeding them
>> > > > > fuzzed data.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You actually can't do that right now.  Filesystems have to opt
>> > > > in to
>> > > > being mounted in unprivileged user namespaces, and no
>> > > > filesystems with
>> > > > backing stores have opted in.  devpts has, but it's buggy
>> > > > without this
>> > > > patch IMO.
>> > >
>> > > Arguably you should use two user namespaces.  The first to do
>> > > what you
>> > > want to as root the second to run as the uid you want to run as.
>> > >
>> > > > > Anyway, I don't see how this affects devpts though. If you're
>> > > > > running in
>> > > > > a container (or uncontained), as a regular users with no
>> > > > > mount
>> > > > > capabilities you can already mount a devpts filesystem if you
>> > > > > create a
>> > > > > subbcontainer with user namespaces and map your uid to 0 in
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > subcontainer. Then you get a new ptmx device that you can do
>> > > > > whatever
>> > > > > you want with. The mount option would let you do the same,
>> > > > > except be
>> > > > > your regular uid in the subcontainer.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The only difference outside of the subcontainer is that if
>> > > > > the outer
>> > > > > container has no uid 0 mapped, yet the user has CAP_SYSADMIN
>> > > > > rights in
>> > > > > that container. Then he can mount devpts in the outer
>> > > > > container where he
>> > > > > before could only mount it in an inner container.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Agreed.  Also, devpts doesn't seem scary at all to me from a
>> > > > userns
>> > > > perspective.  Regular users on normal systems can already use
>> > > > ptmx,
>> > > > and AFAICS basically all of the attack surface is already
>> > > > available
>> > > > through the normal /dev/ptmx node.
>> > >
>> > > My only real take is that there are a lot more places that you
>> > > need to
>> > > tweak beyond devpts.  So this patch seemed lacking and boring.
>> > >
>> > > Beyond that until I get the mount namespace sorted out things are
>> > > pretty
>> > > much in a feature freeze because I can't multitask well enough to
>> > > do
>> > > complicated patches and take feature patches.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Eric, do you think you have time now to take a look at this patch?
>>
>> I am much closer.  Escaping bind mounts is still not yet fixed but I
>> have code that almost works.
>>
>> My gut feel still says that two user namespaces one where your 0 is
>> mapped to your uid and a second where your uid is identity mapped is
>> the
>> preferrable configuration, and makes this patch unnecessary.
>
> I don't really understand this. My usecase is that I want a desktop app
> sandbox, it should run as the actual user that is running the graphical
> session mapped to its real uid. In this namespace i want a /dev/pts so
> that i can e.g. shell out to ssh and feed it a password on the tty
> prompt or similar. And i don't want to bind-mount in the host /dev/pts,
> because then the sandbox can read from the ttys of other apps.
>
> Where does the second namespace enter into this?
>

I think Eric is suggesting making a user namespace that maps your uid
as 0, then making a mount namespace and mounting devpts, then making
*another* user namespace that maps your uid (seen as 0) back to
whatever nonzero number you want.

That would probably work, but I think it's really ugly.

--Andy