Re: plan9 semantics on Linux - mount namespaces

From: Enrico Weigelt <lkml-EcKl7qYKIbxeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>
To: "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux Containers
	<containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: plan9 semantics on Linux - mount namespaces
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:19:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5633d335-3926-d98f-d6d7-948b1e2a0b2c__23029.3178152808$1518560610$gmane$org@metux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f058286-a432-379b-f559-f2fe713807ab-EcKl7qYKIbxeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>

On 13.02.2018 22:12, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

CC @containers@lists.linux-foundation.org

> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I'm currently trying to implement plan9 semantics on Linux and
> yet sorting out how to do the mount namespace handling.
> 
> On plan9, any unprivileged process can create its own namespace
> and mount/bind at will, while on Linux this requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 
> What is the reason for not allowing arbitrary users to create their
> own private mount namespace ? What could go wrong here ?
> 
> IMHO, we could allow mount/bind under the following conditions:
> 
> * the process is in a private mount namespace
> * no suid-flag is honored (either force all mounts to nosuid or
>    completely mask it out)
> * only certain whitelisted filesystems allowed (eg. 9P and FUSE)
> 
> Maybe that all could be enabled by a new capability.
> 
> 
> any suggestions ?
> 
> 
> --mtx
> 


-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers