keyring: handle ENOSYS with keyctl(KEYCTL_JOIN_SESSION_KEYRING) #1893
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While all modern kernels (and I do mean all of them -- this syscall
was added in 2.6.10 before git had begun development!) have support for
this syscall, LXC has a default seccomp profile that returns ENOSYS for
this syscall. For most syscalls this would be a deal-breaker, and our
use of session keyrings is security-based there are a few mitigating
factors that make this change not-completely-insane:
We already have a flag that disables the use of session keyrings
(for older kernels that had system-wide keyring limits and so
on). So disabling it is not a new idea.
While the primary justification of using session keys is
security-based, it's more of a security-by-obscurity protection.
The main defense keyrings have is VFS credentials -- which is
something that users already have better security tools for
(setuid(2) and user namespaces).
Given the security justification you might argue that we
shouldn't silently ignore this. However, the only way for the
kernel to return -ENOSYS is either being ridiculously old (at
which point we wouldn't work anyway) or that there is a seccomp
profile in place blocking it.
Given that the seccomp profile (if malicious) could very easily
just return 0 or a silly return code (or something even more
clever with seccomp-bpf) and trick us without this patch, there
isn't much of a significant change in how much seccomp can trick
us with or without this patch.
Given all of that over-analysis, I'm pretty convinced there isn't a
security problem in this very specific case and it will help out the
ChromeOS folks by allowing Docker to run inside their LXC container
setup. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Fixes #1889
Ref: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=860565
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai asarai@suse.de