On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Eric W.Biederman [off-list ref] wrote:

On December 9, 2014 4:28:38 PM CST, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Eric W. Biederman
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

- Expose the knob to user space through a proc file

/proc/<pid>/setgroups

quoted

  A value of "deny" means the setgroups system call is disabled in

the

quoted

  current processes user namespace and can not be enabled in the
  future in this user namespace.

  A value of "allow" means the segtoups system call is enabled.

- Descendant user namespaces inherit the value of setgroups from
  their parents.

- A proc file is used (instead of a sysctl) as sysctls
  currently do not pass in a struct file so file_ns_capable
  is unusable.

Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>

But I still don't like the name "setgroups".  People may look at that
and have no clue what the scope of the setting is.  And anyone who, as
root, writes "deny" to /proc/self/setgroups, thinking that it acts on
self, will be in for a surprise.

True setgroups isn't perfect.  Documenting it in a manpage may have to be enough. The only real improvement I can think of would be to make the setting a sysctl.   But I think pursuing that approaches the point where perfection is the enemy of getting this problem fixed.

Would "userns_setgroups" be okay?

--Andy

Eric

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC