[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Fix a compilation problem with LXC drop capabilities



Quoting Daniel P. Berrange (berrange redhat com):
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:15:58AM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange redhat com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:42:54PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > >> Quoting Ryota Ozaki (ozaki ryota gmail com):
> > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, yeah but note that often userspace is out of date with respect to
> > >> "recent" new kernel-related defines.  I do a lot of testing on a rhel
> > >> 5.3 partition with spanking-new kernels, so rare is the time that I
> > >> don't have to do
> > >>
> > >> #ifndef PR_CAPBSET_DROP
> > >> #define PR_CAPBSET_DROP 24
> > >> #endif
> > >>
> > >> and same for clone flags (CLONE_NEWIPC), securebits, capabilities,
> > >> etc.
> > >>
> > >> So if the prctl(PR_CAPBSET_DROP) returns -ENOSYS then absolutely I
> > >> agree,
> > >
> > > This makes sense as a way to deal with this problem, since it matches
> > > what we already do with the various CLONE_XXX & MOUNT_XXX flags too.
> > 
> > That convinces me too.
> > 
> > > NB, in the not too distant future I'm going to submit code for making
> > > the libvirtd daemon drop alot of its capabilities, including clearing
> > > the bounding set to prevent inheritance by any child processes except
> > > in required circumstances. For that I'll likely use libcap-ng so we
> > > will be able to stop callin prctl() directly in the LXC driver.
> > 
> > Oh, good. Will the new facility allow us to specify which capabilities
> > to be dropped in a XML file or somewhere? Or the set of caps will be
> > hard-coded?
> 
> That's TBD.  My currently proof of concept code is to restrict the set
> of capabilities to just those required by the libvirtd daemon itself.
> LXC is an interesting problem, because inside the container, you could
> argue that it should just get all capabilities. This would assume the 
> container prevented use of the caapbilities impacting things outside
> the container.

Yeah, once again, that's waiting on us to complete the user namespaces
implementation.

At that point, all capabilities granted within a container will be
limited to resources owned by the container.  For instance,
CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE will be restricted to the container's own files.

We're aware it needs to get done, and hopefully later in the year
we'll take a stab at it, but lack of time doesn't allow it right now.

-serge


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]