Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:07:42 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: James Gritton <jamie@freebsd.org>, freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SHM objects cannot be isolated in jails, any evolution in future FreeBSD versions? Message-ID: <1457989662.568170.549069906.791C2D05@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <0ad738494152d249f3bbe3b722a46bd2@gritton.org> References: <c1e2fc0269e9de3a653d6e47da26b026@whitewinterwolf.com> <0ad738494152d249f3bbe3b722a46bd2@gritton.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016, at 11:42, James Gritton wrote: > On 2016-03-12 04:05, Simon wrote: > > The shm_open()(2) function changed since FreeBSD 7.0: the SHM objects > > path are now uncorrelated from the physical file system to become just > > abstract objects. Probably due to this, the jail system do not provide > > any form of filtering regarding shared memory created using this > > function. Therefore: > > > > - Anyone can create unauthorized communication channels between jails, > > - Users with enough privileges in any jail can access and modify any > > SHM objects system-wide, ie. shared memory objects created in any > > other jail and in the host system. > > > > I've seen a few claims that SHM objects were being handled differently > > whether they were created inside or outside a jail. However, I tested > > on FreeBSD 10.1 and 9.3 but found no evidence of this: both version > > were affected by the same issue. > > > > A reference of such claim: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2015-July/312665.html > > > > My initial post on FreeBSD forum discussing the issue with more > > details: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/55468/ > > > > Currently, there does not seem to be any way to prevent this. > > > > I'm therefore wondering if there are any concrete plans to change this > > situation in future FreeBSD versions? Be able to block the currently > > free inter-jail SHM-based communication seems a minimum, however such > > setting would also most likely prevent SHM-based application to work. > > > > Using file based SHM objects in jails seemed a good ideas but it does > > not seem implemented this way, I don't know why. Is this planned, or > > are there any greater plans ongoing also involving IPC's similar > > issue? > > There are no concrete plans I'm aware of, but it's definitely a thing > that should be done. How about filing a bug report for it? You've > already got a good write-up of the situation. > Both this and SYSV IPC jail support[1] are badly needed. [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48471 -- Mark Felder ports-secteam member feld@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1457989662.568170.549069906.791C2D05>