On 9/17/25 07:27, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 9/10/25 11:11, Alyssa Ross wrote:
>>> This all sounds fine, BUT there are a couple of important things to bear
>>> in mind:
>>>
>>>  • This needs to be maintainable.  I don't know how much code this is
>>>    going to be our how complex it's going to be, but that this will be
>>>    totally custom does make me a bit concerned.
>>
>> This should not be too difficult.  It's the same system calls used by
>> container managers, so if there is a problem it should be possible to
>> get help fairly easily.  bubblewrap 
> 
> bubblewrap? :)

Bubblewrap is a bit more complex than I would like, and doesn't support
useful features like non-recursive bind mounts.  I don't know if minijail
supports them, but it might well.

>>>  • These services are part of our TCB anyway.  Sandboxing only gets us
>>>    defense in depth.  With that in mind, it's basically never going to
>>>    be worth adding sandboxing if it adds any amount of attack surface.
>>>    One example of that would be user namespaces.  They've been a
>>>    consistent source of kernel security issues, and it might be better
>>>    to turn them off entirely than to use them for sandboxing stuff
>>>    that's trusted anyway.
>>
>> Sandboxing virtiofsd is going to be really annoying and will definitely
>> come at a performance cost.  The most efficient way to use virtiofsd
>> is to give it CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH in the initial user namespace and
>> delegate _all_ access control to it.  This allows virtiofs to use
>> open_by_handle_at() for all filesystem access.  Unfortunately,
>> this also allows virtiofsd to open any file on the filesystem, ignoring
>> all discretionary access control checks.  I don't think Landlock would
>> work either.  SELinux or SMACK might work, but using them is
>> significantly more complicated.
>>
>> If one wants to sandbox virtiofsd, one either needs to
>> use --cache=never or run into an effective resource leak
>> (https://gitlab.com/virtio-fs/virtiofsd/-/issues/194).
>> My hope is that in the future the problem will be solved
>> by DAX and an in-kernel shrinker that is aware of the host
>> resources it is using.  Denial of service would be prevented
>> by cgroups on the host, addressing the objection mentioned
>> in the issue comments.
> 
> Do we not trust virtiofsd's built-in sandboxing?

I do trust it, provided that it is verifiable (by dumping the state
of the process at runtime).  However, allowing unrestricted
open_by_handle_at() allows opening any file on the system, conditioned
only on the filesystem supporting open_by_handle_at().  Therefore,
sandboxing and using handles for all filesystem access are incompatible.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)