[Devel] Re: CAP_SYS_ADMIN on restart(2)
Oren Laadan
orenl at cs.columbia.edu
Wed Apr 15 14:05:03 PDT 2009
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
>> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 23:21 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>> Is sysctl to control CAP_SYS_ADMIN on restart(2) OK?
>> If the point is not to let users even *try* restarting things if it
>> *might* not work, then I guess this might be reasonable.
>>
>> If the goal is to increase security by always requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>> for "dangerous" operations, I fear it will be harmful. We may have
>> people adding features that are not considering the security impact of
>> what they're doing just because the cases they care about all require
>> privilege.
>
> Nah, I disagree. (Or put another way, that wouldn't be the goal)
> There are two administrators we want to satisfy:
>
> 1. the one who wants his users to do partial checkpoints, but doesn't
> want to risk giving away any privilege at all in the process. He'll
> be satisified by setting restart(2) to not require cap_sys_admin,
> and his users just won't be able to do a whole container. A lot of
> users will be happy with that (though no SYSVIPC support, then).
There is also a middle way: use setuid program to allow creation
of a new namespace (under your favorite policy), then drop the
privileges and continue as unprivileged inside that container.
IOW, don't make the initial container-creation a barrier for the
entire operation.
Oren.
>
> 2. the one who may have one or two users who he trusts to do
> checkpoint/restart, but otherwise doesn't want even the slightest
> risk of other users using restart, and maybe finding an exploit.
> That one is probably the more common admin, and he'll be satisified
> with requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all restart(2)'s, since he's ok
> risking giving extra privilege to the ones he trusts.
>
> And meanwhile, by virtue of leaving (1) supported, we are still
> more under the gun to make sure that everything restart(2) does
> is properly checked.
>
>> What would the goal be?
>>
>> -- Dave
>
> -serge
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list