On 2024-04-28, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2024, at 6:39 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch-set implements the OA2_CRED_INHERIT flag for openat2() syscall. > > It is needed to perform an open operation with the creds that were in > > effect when the dir_fd was opened, if the dir was opened with O_CRED_ALLOW > > flag. This allows the process to pre-open some dirs and switch eUID > > (and other UIDs/GIDs) to the less-privileged user, while still retaining > > the possibility to open/create files within the pre-opened directory set. > > > > I’ve been contemplating this, and I want to propose a different solution. > > First, the problem Stas is solving is quite narrow and doesn’t > actually need kernel support: if I want to write a user program that > sandboxes itself, I have at least three solutions already. I can make > a userns and a mountns; I can use landlock; and I can have a separate > process that brokers filesystem access using SCM_RIGHTS. > > But what if I want to run a container, where the container can access > a specific host directory, and the contained application is not aware > of the exact technology being used? I recently started using > containers in anger in a production setting, and “anger” was > definitely the right word: binding part of a filesystem in is > *miserable*. Getting the DAC rules right is nasty. LSMs are worse. > Podman’s “bind,relabel” feature is IMO utterly disgusting. I think I > actually gave up on making one of my use cases work on a Fedora > system. > > Here’s what I wanted to do, logically, in production: pick a host > directory, pick a host *principal* (UID, GID, label, etc), and have > the *entire container* access the directory as that principal. This is > what happens automatically if I run the whole container as a userns > with only a single UID mapped, but I don’t really want to do that for > a whole variety and of reasons. > > So maybe reimagining Stas’ feature a bit can actually solve this > problem. Instead of a special dirfd, what if there was a special > subtree (in the sense of open_tree) that captures a set of creds and > does all opens inside the subtree using those creds? > > This isn’t a fully formed proposal, but I *think* it should be > generally fairly safe for even an unprivileged user to clone a subtree > with a specific flag set to do this. Maybe a capability would be > needed (CAP_CAPTURE_CREDS?), but it would be nice to allow delegating > this to a daemon if a privilege is needed, and getting the API right > might be a bit tricky. Tying this to an actual mount rather than a file handle sounds like a more plausible proposal than OA2_CRED_INHERIT, but it just seems that this is going to re-create all of the work that went into id-mapped mounts but with the extra-special step of making the generic VFS permissions no longer work normally (unless the idea is that everything would pretend to be owned by current_fsuid()?). IMHO it also isn't enough to just make open work, you need to make all operations work (which leads to a non-trivial amount of filesystem-specific handling), which is just idmapped mounts. A lot of work was put into making sure that is safe, and collapsing owners seems like it will cause a lot of headaches. I also find it somewhat amusing that this proposal is to basically give up on multi-user permissions for this one directory tree because it's too annoying to deal with. In that case, isn't chmod 777 a simpler solution? (I'm being a bit flippant, of course there is a difference, but the net result is that all users in the container would have the same permissions with all of the fun issues that implies.) In short, AFAICS idmapped mounts pretty much solve this problem (minus the ability to collapse users, which I suspect is not a good idea in general)? > Then two different things could be done: > > 1. The subtree could be used unmounted or via /proc magic links. This > would be for programs that are aware of this interface. > > 2. The subtree could be mounted, and accessed through the mount would > use the captured creds. > > (Hmm. What would a new open_tree() pointing at this special subtree do?) > > > With all this done, if userspace wired it up, a container user could > do something like: > > —bind-capture-creds source=dest > > And the contained program would access source *as the user who started > the container*, and this would just work without relabeling or > fiddling with owner uids or gids or ACLs, and it would continue to > work even if the container has multiple dynamically allocated subuids > mapped (e.g. one for “root” and one for the actual application). > > Bonus points for the ability to revoke the creds in an already opened > subtree. Or even for the creds to automatically revoke themselves when > the opener exits (or maybe when a specific cred-pinning fd goes away). > > (This should work for single files as well as for directories.) > > New LSM hooks or extensions of existing hooks might be needed to make > LSMs comfortable with this. > > What do you all think? -- Aleksa Sarai Senior Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH <https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
