-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 339
bubblewrap: Add --not-a-security-boundary flag to enable fail-open behavior
#751
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
Open
ao2
wants to merge
2
commits into
containers:main
Choose a base branch
from
ao2:ao2/not-a-security-boundary
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+70
−3
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
I verified that having the check under the for loop that start with
i = 1seem to be enough:This seems to cover also host mount points like
/hdddirectly under/, because even when--bind / /is usedmount_tab[0].mountpointwill be/newroot, and so the code will handle/newroot/hddAnd we can assume that
/newrootis not on an automount?So we shouldn't nee to add the check also for
mount_tab[0].mountpoint.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.
Normally, yes: it's on a tmpfs, look for comment
/* Create a tmpfs which we will use as / in the namespace */.If we're mounting an automount onto the root (like
--bind /mnt/am /where/mnt/amis an automount) then I thinkmount_tab[0].mountpointmight be the automounter? But in that case, I thinkmount(2)would trigger the automount, mount the underlying filesystem, and either succeed or fail as appropriate. Please could you confirm that?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.
I think it's reasonable to say that if
/mnt/badis a broken automount, thenbwrap --not-a-security-boundary ... --bind /mnt/bad $DEST ...should still fail: even though we're not imposing a security boundary, we still asked to mount/mnt/badonto$DEST, and if we're unable to do so, we should fail.Conversely, if
/mnt/badis a broken automount and we mount/mntonto$DESTsuccessfully, it's a lot more reasonable to succeed even though were unable to remount/mnt/badasnodev.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.
yes, I confirm that
mountseems to trigger access to the automount in case it's/newroot, and its succeeds or fail regardless of-not-a-security-boundary:and
The results about
/mnt/goodtell us thatbwrapis able to mount the filesystem, but it just happens to be an empty.