On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote: > + /* > + * Namespace checks. Considered safe if: > + * cgroup namespace is the same > + * User namespace is the same > + * PID namespace is the same > + */ > + if (current->nsproxy) > + ccgn = current->nsproxy->cgroup_ns; > + if (p->nsproxy) > + pcgn = p->nsproxy->cgroup_ns; > + if (ccgn != pcgn) > + return -EACCES; > + if (current->cred->user_ns != p->cred->user_ns) > + return -EACCES; > + if (task_active_pid_ns(current) != task_active_pid_ns(p)) > + return -EACCES; > + return 0; I really don't like the idea of hard-coding namespace security semantics in an LSM. Also, I'm not sure if these semantics make any sense. It least make it user configurable. -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
