mirror of
https://git.proxmox.com/git/mirror_lxc
synced 2025-08-16 21:46:58 +00:00
attach: handle /proc with hidepid={1,2} property
Receive fd for LSM security module before we set{g,u}id(). The reason is that on set{g,u}id() the kernel will a) make us undumpable and b) we will change our effective uid. This means our effective uid will be different from the effective uid of the process that created us which means that this processs no longer has capabilities in our namespace including CAP_SYS_PTRACE. This means we will not be able to read and /proc/<pid> files for the process anymore when /proc is mounted with hidepid={1,2}. So let's get the lsm label fd before the set{g,u}id(). Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a998454a2a
commit
57de839fd5
@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ struct attach_clone_payload {
|
||||
|
||||
static int attach_child_main(struct attach_clone_payload *payload)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int fd, ret;
|
||||
int fd, lsm_fd, ret;
|
||||
long flags;
|
||||
#if HAVE_SYS_PERSONALITY_H
|
||||
long new_personality;
|
||||
@ -830,6 +830,9 @@ static int attach_child_main(struct attach_clone_payload *payload)
|
||||
int ipc_socket = payload->ipc_socket;
|
||||
lxc_attach_options_t* options = payload->options;
|
||||
struct lxc_proc_context_info* init_ctx = payload->init_ctx;
|
||||
bool needs_lsm = (options->namespaces & CLONE_NEWNS) &&
|
||||
(options->attach_flags & LXC_ATTACH_LSM) &&
|
||||
init_ctx->lsm_label;
|
||||
|
||||
/* A description of the purpose of this functionality is provided in the
|
||||
* lxc-attach(1) manual page. We have to remount here and not in the
|
||||
@ -883,6 +886,26 @@ static int attach_child_main(struct attach_clone_payload *payload)
|
||||
rexit(-1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* This remark only affects fully unprivileged containers:
|
||||
* Receive fd for LSM security module before we set{g,u}id(). The reason
|
||||
* is that on set{g,u}id() the kernel will a) make us undumpable and b)
|
||||
* we will change our effective uid. This means our effective uid will
|
||||
* be different from the effective uid of the process that created us
|
||||
* which means that this processs no longer has capabilities in our
|
||||
* namespace including CAP_SYS_PTRACE. This means we will not be able to
|
||||
* read and /proc/<pid> files for the process anymore when /proc is
|
||||
* mounted with hidepid={1,2}. So let's get the lsm label fd before the
|
||||
* set{g,u}id().
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (needs_lsm) {
|
||||
ret = lxc_abstract_unix_recv_fds(ipc_socket, &lsm_fd, 1, NULL, 0);
|
||||
if (ret <= 0) {
|
||||
shutdown(ipc_socket, SHUT_RDWR);
|
||||
rexit(-1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
TRACE("Received LSM label file descriptor %d from parent", lsm_fd);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Set {u,g}id. */
|
||||
new_uid = 0;
|
||||
new_gid = 0;
|
||||
@ -941,27 +964,19 @@ static int attach_child_main(struct attach_clone_payload *payload)
|
||||
"gainable privileges.");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if ((options->namespaces & CLONE_NEWNS) &&
|
||||
(options->attach_flags & LXC_ATTACH_LSM) && init_ctx->lsm_label) {
|
||||
int lsm_labelfd, on_exec;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Receive fd for LSM security module. */
|
||||
ret = lxc_abstract_unix_recv_fds(ipc_socket, &lsm_labelfd, 1, NULL, 0);
|
||||
if (ret <= 0) {
|
||||
shutdown(ipc_socket, SHUT_RDWR);
|
||||
rexit(-1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
TRACE("Received LSM label file descriptor %d from parent", lsm_labelfd);
|
||||
if (needs_lsm) {
|
||||
int on_exec;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Change into our new LSM profile. */
|
||||
on_exec = options->attach_flags & LXC_ATTACH_LSM_EXEC ? 1 : 0;
|
||||
if (lsm_set_label_at(lsm_labelfd, on_exec, init_ctx->lsm_label) < 0) {
|
||||
ret = lsm_set_label_at(lsm_fd, on_exec, init_ctx->lsm_label);
|
||||
if (ret < 0) {
|
||||
SYSERROR("Failed to set LSM label.");
|
||||
shutdown(ipc_socket, SHUT_RDWR);
|
||||
close(lsm_labelfd);
|
||||
close(lsm_fd);
|
||||
rexit(-1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
close(lsm_labelfd);
|
||||
close(lsm_fd);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (init_ctx->container && init_ctx->container->lxc_conf &&
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user