Re: [PATCH v3 00/25] user_namespace: introduce fsid mappings

[Josef Bacik]

On 2/18/20 9:33 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is v3 after (off- and online) discussions with Jann the following
> changes were made:
> - To handle nested user namespaces cleanly, efficiently, and with full
>    backwards compatibility for non fsid-mapping aware workloads we only
>    allow writing fsid mappings as long as the corresponding id mapping
>    type has not been written.
> - Split the patch which adds the internal ability in
>    kernel/user_namespace to verify and write fsid mappings into tree
>    patches:
>    1. [PATCH v3 04/25] fsuidgid: add fsid mapping helpers
>       patch to implement core helpers for fsid translations (i.e.
>       make_kfs*id(), from_kfs*id{_munged}(), kfs*id_to_k*id(),
>       k*id_to_kfs*id()
>    2. [PATCH v3 05/25] user_namespace: refactor map_write()
>       patch to refactor map_write() in order to prepare for actual fsid
>       mappings changes in the following patch. (This should make it
>       easier to review.)
>    3. [PATCH v3 06/25] user_namespace: make map_write() support fsid mappings
>       patch to implement actual fsid mappings support in mape_write()
> - Let the keyctl infrastructure only operate on kfsid which are always
>    mapped/looked up in the id mappings similar to what we do for
>    filesystems that have the same superblock visible in multiple user
>    namespaces.
>
> This version also comes with minimal tests which I intend to expand in
> the future.
>
>  From pings and off-list questions and discussions at Google Container
> Security Summit there seems to be quite a lot of interest in this
> patchset with use-cases ranging from layer sharing for app containers
> and k8s, as well as data sharing between containers with different id
> mappings. I haven't Cced all people because I don't have all the email
> adresses at hand but I've at least added Phil now. :)
I put this into a kernel for our container guys to mess with in order to 
validate it would actually be useful for real world uses.  I've cc'ed the guy 
who did all of the work in case you have specific questions.

Good news is the interface is acceptable, albeit apparently the whole user ns 
interface sucks in general.  But you haven't made it worse, so success!

But in testing it there appears to be a problem with tmpfs?  Our applications 
will use shared memory segments for certain things and it apparently breaks this 
in interesting ways, it appears to not shift the UID appropriately on tmpfs. 
This seems to be relatively straightforward to reproduce, but if you have 
trouble let me know and I'll come up with a shell script that reproduces the 
problem.

We are happy to continue testing these patches to make sure they're working in 
our container setup, if you want to CC me on future submissions I can build them 
for our internal testing and validate them as well.  Thanks,

Josef