On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Eric W.Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On December 9, 2014 4:28:38 PM CST, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman >><ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> - Expose the knob to user space through a proc file >>/proc/<pid>/setgroups >>> >>> A value of "deny" means the setgroups system call is disabled in >>the >>> current processes user namespace and can not be enabled in the >>> future in this user namespace. >>> >>> A value of "allow" means the segtoups system call is enabled. >>> >>> - Descendant user namespaces inherit the value of setgroups from >>> their parents. >>> >>> - A proc file is used (instead of a sysctl) as sysctls >>> currently do not pass in a struct file so file_ns_capable >>> is unusable. >> >>Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>But I still don't like the name "setgroups". People may look at that >>and have no clue what the scope of the setting is. And anyone who, as >>root, writes "deny" to /proc/self/setgroups, thinking that it acts on >>self, will be in for a surprise. > > True setgroups isn't perfect. Documenting it in a manpage may have to be enough. The only real improvement I can think of would be to make the setting a sysctl. But I think pursuing that approaches the point where perfection is the enemy of getting this problem fixed. > Would "userns_setgroups" be okay? --Andy > Eric -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
