alois31/lix
0
0
Fork 0
forked from lix-project/lix
Code Pull requests Activity

Update description for require-drop-supplementary-groups.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Ben Radford 2023-07-11 10:57:03 +01:00
parent 07dabcc90e
commit 0caf28f238
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 9DF5D4640AB888D5
1 changed files with 7 additions and 13 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
src/libstore/globals.hh
View file

@ -526,21 +526,15 @@ public:
Setting<bool> requireDropSupplementaryGroups{this, true, "require-drop-supplementary-groups", Setting<bool> requireDropSupplementaryGroups{this, true, "require-drop-supplementary-groups",
R"( R"(
Whether to drop supplementary groups when building with sandboxing. Following the principle of least privilege,
This is normally a good idea if we are root and have the capability to Nix will attempt to drop supplementary groups when building with sandboxing.
do so.
But if this "root" is mapped from a non-root user in a larger However this can fail under some circumstances.
namespace, we won't be able drop additional groups; they will be For example, if the user lacks the CAP_SETGID capability.
mapped to nogroup in the child namespace. There does not seem to be a Search setgroups(2) for EPERM to find more detailed information on this.
workaround for this.
(But who can tell from reading user_namespaces(7)? See also https://lwn.net/Articles/621612/.) If you encounter such a failure,
you can instruct Nix to continue without dropping supplementary groups by setting this option to `false`.
TODO: It might be good to create a middle ground option that allows
`setgroups` to fail if all additional groups are "nogroup" / the value
of `/proc/sys/fs/overflowuid`. This would handle the common
nested-sandboxing case identified above.
)"}; )"};
#if __linux__ #if __linux__