From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Forbid invocation of kexec_load() outside initial PID namespace
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:20:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120806192040.GA27023@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1344122135.1422.2.camel@Nokia-N900-51-1>
Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com):
> Eric,
>
> during the container reboot discussion, the agreement was reached that rebooting for real fron non-init pid ns is not safe. Restarting userspace (in pidns caller owns) is. I argue the same reasoning supports this.
>
> I haven't had a chance to review the patch, but the idea gets my ack. I'll look at the patch asap.
>
> I'm also fine with splitting cap_sys_boot into a user and system caps. The former would only be needed targeted to the userns of the init pid, while the latter would be required to init_user_ns. Then containers could safely be given cap_sys_restart or whatever, but not cap_sys_boot which authorizes kexec and machine reset/poweroff.
Splitting the cap up into CAP_RESTART (restart /sbin/init) and CAP_BOOT
(reboot hardware or kexec kernel) has the advantage that the capabilities
each remain simpler to parse, no 'in this context it means that'.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-06 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-03 10:53 Daniel P. Berrange
2012-08-03 11:25 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2012-08-03 12:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-08-03 12:52 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2012-08-03 13:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-08-04 23:15 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-08-06 19:20 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2012-08-06 19:00 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-08-06 19:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-08-06 19:24 ` Serge E. Hallyn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120806192040.GA27023@mail.hallyn.com \
--to=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@free.fr \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®