[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CRIU] [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change boundaries of data, brk and stack
Cyrill Gorcunov <> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>> > My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
>> >
>> > For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
>> > verify that you are below the appropriate rlimit at all times and no
>> > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check is needed. You only need CAP_SYS_RESOURCE
>> > to exceed your per process limits.
>> >
>> > All you have to do is to fix the current code to properly enforce the
>> > limits.
>> I'm afraid what you are suggesting doesn't work.
>> The first reason is that we can not change both boundaries in one call.
>> But when we are restoring these attributes, we may need to move their
>> too far.
> When this code was introduced, there were no user-namespace implementation,
> if I remember correctly, so CAP_SYS_RESOURCE was enough barrier point
> to prevent modifying this values by anyone. Now user-ns brings a limit --
> we need somehow to provide a way to modify these mm fields having no
> CAP_SYS_RESOURCE set. "Verifying rlimit" not an option here because
> we're modifying members one by one (looking back I think this was not
> a good idea to modify the fields in this manner).
> Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
> to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
> modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that all new values
> are sane and fit rlimits, then we could (probably) deprecate old
> api if noone except c/r camp is using it (I actually can't imagine
> who else might need this api). Then CAP_SYS_RESOURCE requirement
> could be ripped off. Hm? (sure touching api is always "no-no"
> case, but maybe...)

Hmm. Let me rewind this a little bit.

I want to be very stupid and ask the following.

Why can't you have the process of interest do:
execve(executable, args, ...);

/* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
/* Fix up the mostly correct process to look like it has been
* executing for a while.

That should work, set all of the interesting fields, and works as
non-root today. My gut feel says do that and we can just
deprecate/remove prctl_set_mm.

I am hoping we can move this conversation what makes sense from oh ick
checkpoint/restort does not work with user namespaces.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-14 21:21    [W:0.114 / U:1.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site