Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 12:51:12 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: "Kyle Evans" <kevans@freebsd.org>, "James Gritton" <jamie@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-jail <freebsd-jail@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, trustedbsd-discuss@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Jail privsets Message-ID: <BAD5CA23-A4B6-4C22-B095-F89217476825@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaGUEZqg_4WOgZ2zAOCboBGeeOY45ie_PSkVSK=3ct4b0g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACNAnaEKoBppjG8HH0KgYQv0EHPUcHmB3teyw1PQrjG3xsbXYQ@mail.gmail.com> <06F654BB-B087-4AE5-8599-E5837A85A850@FreeBSD.org> <CACNAnaGdn4o84UmKfA=m-fWvaUSHj-1zTVsBe9cdZZy0JMzEKg@mail.gmail.com> <6BA03DAD-BDCD-4A53-A80A-4B7B476B803C@FreeBSD.org> <CACNAnaGUEZqg_4WOgZ2zAOCboBGeeOY45ie_PSkVSK=3ct4b0g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Nov 2020, at 14:39, Kyle Evans wrote: Hi, Cc: jamie explicitly as he might have thoughts as well. > Yeah, so jail sets are a little tricky, and to be honest I haven't > really thought about how to cope with common jail sets. The > complication arises because you have various allow flags that > typically default to off and turn privileges on, but your common sets > would have to include them. So, you'd probably end up with: > > privset 0: All privs available to the superuser (not considering > superuser policy just yet) > privset 1: All privs available to jails (assuming most permissive, all > allow flags on and assuming a new vnet on VIMAGE systems) > > So jails would typically inherit privset 1, but they'd have to mask > out based on vnet/allow flags out of necessity. Now, that's not > terrible, but I think we'd have to do a couple more things to reduce > maintenance burden on folks introducing privs: > > 1.) Clearly define a central table that maps pr_flags <-> privs where > there's a 1:1 mapping (most common, though PRIV_VFS_*MOUNT* are a > little more complicated) > 2.) Walk said table when we're defining privs in privset 1 > 3.) Walk said table when we're determining what to mask out > > I suspect the vnet set is large enough that we'd just have a separate > kernel-internal mask for "vnet privs". In any event, for most people, > there will be one of three places that you might touch when adding a > new priv flag or pr_flag mapping to a priv, but it should still be > obvious what you want: either you want a conditionally added flag, you > want to influence the default jail policy, or you want to change the > vnet policy. The latter two scenarios might even be a little easier, > because you don't need to wade through these gigantic switch > statements with a lot of cases to determine where you really want it > to go. I think this is all terribly too complicated. If we’ll have manageable fine-grained priv system, them retire allow and vnet checks for PRIV_* checks and be done with it. If we need new PRIV_* checks to accomplish that adding PRIV_* is semi-cheap to add. The big switch statements in kern_jail.c will go as the applied priv set will do the right thing already, which means at this point we’d have a base-system-privset, a classic-jail-privset, a vnet-jail-privset by default probably. If we want to keep allow* in jails we can probably make them compat code to adjust PRIV_* but I am not sure I’d want jail to still do that or a separate priv command (a la cpuset). Means jails become simple again and a lot of the complicate logic can drop out. >> And yes, that would indeed simplify our jail and network stack (and some >> other) >> code quite a bit. >> >> I’d love this (step-by-step or in whole right away) :-) >> > > :-) > > I'm looking to see if I can define a useful abstraction from > cpuset/domainset that would limit the amount of duplication needed for > this, then I'll post a v2 to Phabricator. There’s probably edge cases in which managing privsets will be a priv as well and we’ll probably need multiple cases: one that can still “widen” priv and one that can only copy-and-further-restrict-only. The latter probably being the default. /bz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BAD5CA23-A4B6-4C22-B095-F89217476825>