On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:52 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 04:32:04PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 2:54 AM Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(r, &m->mnt_mounts, mnt_child) {
> > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) &&
>
>
> > Good point. That issue was nagging at the back of my mind. Having an
> > explicit flag nicely solves the issue.
>
> Ideally we avoid multiple capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) calls by only doing it
> once and saving the return value. capable() call's aren't that cheap.
Agreed. The capability check doesn't do any subject/object
comparisons so calling it for each mount is overkill. However, I
would think we would want the LSM hook called from inside the loop as
that could involve a subject (@current) and object (individual mount
point) comparison.
> Plus, we should decide whether this should trigger an audit event or
> not: capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) triggers an audit event,
> ns_capable_noaudit(&init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) wouldn't.
Why would we not want to audit the capable() call?
--
paul-moore.com
