-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 931
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Seccomp: Tighten container capability checks a bit to align with kernel behaviour #13458
Conversation
6bf62b7
to
837d73d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I right that this essentially boils down to s/CAP_SYS_MODULE/CAP_MKNOD/
?
Feels like the right capability to check for, thanks! LGTM
Thanks @mihalicyn ! |
837d73d
to
570b873
Compare
Let's tighten capability checks in mknod interception code to align this with what we have in the kernel. So, if mknod interception is enabled then only user with CAP_MKNOD in the container's initial user namespace can use it. Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
570b873
to
b7dc46b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Let's tighten capability checks in mknod interception code to align this with what we have in the kernel. So, if mknod interception is enabled then only user with CAP_MKNOD in the container's initial user namespace can use it.