Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > >> > >> Are there other permission checks that mount is doing that we > >> care about. > > > > Not mount itself, but in looking up /share/fa/root/home/fa, > > user fa doesn't have the rights to read /share, and by setting > > fsuid to fa and dropping CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH the mount action fails. > > Got it. > > I'm not certain this is actually a problem it may be a feature. > But it does fly in the face of the general principle of just > getting out of roots way so things can get done. > > I think we can solve your basic problem by simply doing like: > chdir(/share); mount(.); To simply avoid the permission problem. > > The practical question is how much do we care. > > > But the solution you outlined in your previous post would work around > > this perfectly. > > If we are not using usual permissions which user do we use current->uid? > Or do we pass that user someplace? Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for a non-fs-specific arg? > >> > If it were really the equivalent then I could keep my capabilities :) > >> > after changing it. > >> > >> We drop all capabilities after we change the euid. > > > > Not if we've done prctl(PR_SET_KEEPCAPS, 1) > > Ah cap_clear doesn't do the obvious thing. > > Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
