David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > int (*capable) (struct task_struct *tsk, const struct cred *cred,
> > - int cap, int audit);
> > + struct user_namespace *ns, int cap, int audit);
>
> Hmmm... A chunk of the contents of the cred struct are user-namespaced.
> Could you add the user_namespace pointer to the cred struct and thus avoid
> passing it as an argument to other things.
Ah, no... Ignore that, I think I see that you do need it.
> +int cap_capable(struct task_struct *tsk, const struct cred *cred,
> + struct user_namespace *targ_ns, int cap, int audit)
> {
> - return cap_raised(cred->cap_effective, cap) ? 0 : -EPERM;
> + for (;;) {
> + /* The creator of the user namespace has all caps. */
> + if (targ_ns != &init_user_ns && targ_ns->creator == cred->user)
> + return 0;
Why is that last comment so? Why should the creating namespace sport all
possible capabilities? Do you have to have all capabilities available to you
to be permitted create a new user namespace?
Also, would it be worth having a separate cap_ns_capable()? Wouldn't most
calls to cap_capable() only be checking the caps granted in the current user
namespace?
David
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
