Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Return -EPERM if an owning user namespace is outside of a process
> current user namespace.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> index a5bc78c..6382e5e 100644
> --- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
> @@ -994,6 +994,30 @@ static int userns_install(struct nsproxy *nsproxy, struct ns_common *ns)
> return commit_creds(cred);
> }
>
> +struct ns_common *ns_get_owner(struct ns_common *ns)
> +{
> + const struct cred *cred = current_cred();
> + struct user_namespace *user_ns, *p;
> +
> + user_ns = p = ns->user_ns;
> + if (user_ns == NULL) { /* ns is init_user_ns */
> + /* Unprivileged user should not know that it's init_user_ns. */
> + if (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
> + }
This permission check is not what I meant to request. This does not
handle nested user namespaces.
> + for (;;) {
> + if (p == cred->user_ns)
> + break;
> + if (p == &init_user_ns)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
> + p = p->parent;
> + }
> +
The permission check really needs to be down here. And be:
if (!ns_capable(user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
return ERR_PTR(-EPERM).
That cleanly and easily handles more than a depth of a single user
namespace.
> + return &get_user_ns(user_ns)->ns;
> +}
> +
> const struct proc_ns_operations userns_operations = {
> .name = "user",
> .type = CLONE_NEWUSER,
Eric
--
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
