[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/2] virtiofsd: drop Linux capabilities(7)
From: |
Miklos Szeredi |
Subject: |
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/2] virtiofsd: drop Linux capabilities(7) |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:26:37 +0200 |
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:25 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:08 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:49:05PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > virtiofsd doesn't need of all Linux capabilities(7) available to root.
> > > > Keep a
> > > > whitelisted set of capabilities that we require. This improves
> > > > security in
> > > > case virtiofsd is compromised by making it hard for an attacker to gain
> > > > further
> > > > access to the system.
> > >
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > >
> > > I just noticed that this patch set breaks overlayfs on top of virtiofs.
> >
> > How so? Virtiofs isn't mounting overlayfs, is it? Only the mounter
> > requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN, not the accessor.
>
> virtiofsd needs CAP_SYS_ADMIN, otherwise fsetxattr(trusted.overlay.opaque)
> fails in lo_setxattr().
>
> This is triggered when we mount overlayfs on top of virtiofs and overlayfs
> tries to set OVL_XATTR_OPAQUE on upper to check if trusted xattrs are
> supported or not.
Ah, right.
Plan is to use "user.*" xattr for unprivileged overlay. This would be
a good way to eliminate this attack surface in the overlay on virtiofs
case as well.
Other ways to minimize risk is to separate operations requiring
CAP_SYS_ADMIN into a separate process, preferably a separate
executable, that communicates with virtiofsd using a pipe and contains
the minimum amount of code.
Thanks,
Miklos
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/2] virtiofsd: drop Linux capabilities(7), Miklos Szeredi, 2020/06/19
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/2] virtiofsd: drop Linux capabilities(7), Vivek Goyal, 2020/06/19