* Vivek Goyal (vgo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> At startup if we are running as non-root user, then internally set
> unpriviliged mode set. Also add a notion of sandbox NONE and set
> that internally in unprivileged mode. setting up namespaces and
> chroot() fails in unpriviliged mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> index e2fbc614fd..cd91c4a831 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> @@ -147,11 +147,13 @@ enum {
> enum {
> SANDBOX_NAMESPACE,
> SANDBOX_CHROOT,
> + SANDBOX_NONE,
> };
>
> struct lo_data {
> pthread_mutex_t mutex;
> int sandbox;
> + bool unprivileged;
> int debug;
> int writeback;
> int flock;
> @@ -3288,6 +3290,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> lo_map_init(&lo.dirp_map);
> lo_map_init(&lo.fd_map);
>
> + if (geteuid() != 0) {
> + lo.unprivileged = true;
> + lo.sandbox = SANDBOX_NONE;
> + fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "Running in unprivileged passthrough
> mode.\n");
> + }
I don't like this being automatic; to switch to a less secure mode, the
user should have to explicitly ask for it; we don't want people
accidentally ending up with less security.
Also, I'm not sure that checking for geteuid() != 0 is the right test -
wouldn't the current virtiofsd run with a non-root user as long
as it had the correct capabilities?
I was doing to suggest we match cloud-hypervisor where we added
--disable-sandbox; but with this we now have a trinary switch;
so sandbox=none is probably the right way.
Dave
> if (fuse_parse_cmdline(&args, &opts) != 0) {
> goto err_out1;
> }
> --
> 2.25.4
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
