On 08/12/2011 06:29 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx): > ... >>> Doesn't this mean that an unprivileged task in a container can shut >>> down the container? >> Ha ha ! Right, good catch :) >> >> Yes, rethinking about it, we can do what initially proposed Bruno by >> just preventing to reboot when we are not in the init_pid_ns. Actually, >> the sys_reboot occurs after the services shutdown and "kill -1 SIGTERM" >> and "kill -1 SIGKILL", and would not make sense to do that in a child >> pid namespace, except if we are in a container where we don't want to >> reboot :) >> >> So IMO, it is safe to do: >> >> if (!ns_capable(current_pid_ns()->user_ns, CAP_SYS_BOOT)) >> return -EPERM; >> >> if (pid_ns != &init_pid_ns) >> return pid_namespace_reboot(pid_ns, cmd, buffer); > So I don't know if you want to prepend > http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=serge/linux-syslogns.git;a=commit;h=63556e9a39bcd75ec4a88333425800905013c73e > to your patchset, or just check nsown_capable(CAP_SYS_BOOT) for now, > but as soon as you resend with that I'll happily, nay, > ecstatically ack. Ok, in order to not mix the functionnalities, I will send in a separate patch the nsown_capable change. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
