From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751260Ab1HKQbN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:31:13 -0400
Received: from smtprelay.restena.lu ([158.64.1.62]:60290 "EHLO
	smtprelay.restena.lu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750933Ab1HKQbH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:31:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:30:27 +0200
From: Bruno =?UTF-8?B?UHLDqW1vbnQ=?= <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LXC Development <Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] catching sys_reboot syscall
Message-ID: <20110811183027.49275b2d@neptune.home>
In-Reply-To: <4E42EEE3.9050608@free.fr>
References: <4E4051A0.8030009@free.fr>
	<20110810221028.2e0c8590@neptune.home>
	<4E42EEE3.9050608@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.4; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 10 August 2011 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr> wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 10:10 PM, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > [I'm adding containers ml as we had a discussion there some time ago
> >  for this feature]
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> >> +    if (cmd == LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART2)
> >> +        if (strncpy_from_user(&buffer[0], arg, sizeof(buffer) - 1) < 0)
> >> +            return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> +    /* If we are not in the initial pid namespace, we send a signal
> >> +     * to the parent of this init pid namespace, notifying a shutdown
> >> +     * occured */
> >> +    if (pid_ns != &init_pid_ns)
> >> +        pid_namespace_reboot(pid_ns, cmd, buffer);
> > Should there be a return here?
> > Or does pid_namespace_reboot() never return by submitting signal to
> > parent?
> 
> Yes, it does not return a value, like 'do_notify_parent_cldstop'

So execution flow continues reaching the whole "host reboot code"?

That's not so good as it then prevents using CAP_SYS_BOOT inside PID namespace
to limit access to rebooting the container from inside as giving a process
inside container CAP_SYS_BOOT would cause host to reboot (and when not given
process inside container would get -EPERM in all cases).

Wouldn't the following be better?:
...
+
+    /* We only trust the superuser with rebooting the system. */
+    if (!capable(CAP_SYS_BOOT))
+        return -EPERM;
+
+    /* If we are not in the initial pid namespace, we send a signal
+     * to the parent of this init pid namespace, notifying a shutdown
+     * occured */
+    if (pid_ns != &init_pid_ns) {
+        pid_namespace_reboot(pid_ns, cmd, buffer);
+        return 0;
+    }
+
     mutex_lock(&reboot_mutex);
     switch (cmd) {
...


If I misunderstood, please correct me.

Thanks,
Bruno