[PATCH v6 0/1] ns: introduce binfmt_misc namespace

Laurent Vivier laurent at vivier.eu
Thu Nov 29 13:05:31 UTC 2018


Le 01/11/2018 à 15:16, Eric W. Biederman a écrit :
> Laurent Vivier <laurent at vivier.eu> writes:
> 
>> On 01/11/2018 04:51, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:59 AM James Bottomley
>>> <James.Bottomley at hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:52 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comment on this last version?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any chance to be merged?
>>>>
>>>> I've got a use case for this:  I went to one of the Graphene talks in
>>>> Edinburgh and it struck me that we seem to keep reinventing the type of
>>>> sandboxing that qemu-user already does.  However if you want to do an
>>>> x86 on x86 sandbox, you can't currently use the binfmt_misc mechanism
>>>> because that has you running *every* binary on the system emulated.
>>>> Doing it per user namespace fixes this problem and allows us to at
>>>> least cut down on all the pointless duplication.
>>>
>>> Waaaaaait. What? qemu-user does not do "sandboxing". qemu-user makes
>>> your code slower and *LESS* secure. As far as I know, qemu-user is
>>> only intended for purposes like development and testing.
>>>
>>
>> I think the idea here is not to run qemu, but to use an interpreter
>> (something like gVisor) into a container to control the binaries
>> execution inside the container without using this interpreter on the
>> host itself (container and host shares the same binfmt_misc
>> magic/mask).
> 
> Please remind me of this patchset after the merge window is over, and if
> there are no issues I will take it via my user namespace branch.
> 
> Last I looked I had a concern that some of the permission check issues
> were being papered over by using override cred instead of fixing the
> deaper code.  Sometimes they are necessary but seeing work-arounds
> instead of fixes for problems tends to be a maintenance issue, possibly
> with security consequences.  Best is if the everyone agrees on how all
> of the interfaces work so their are no surprises.

I don't know where we are in the merge window, but is there something I
can do to have this merged?

Thanks,
Laurent



More information about the Containers mailing list