[stormbrew]

I would call it maybe vageuly similar, but it is by no means a subset. It has some features in common and many that are completely nonsense in a posix context.

The most pressing problem for implementing plan9-like semantics in a POSIX system is the permission system. In particular, setuid as a mechanism for privilege escalation. This is a big part of why users can't make their own namespaces on linux without help/intervention from root-owned processes (like dockerd or systemd).

Think about it: if you can make the file namespace any shape you want, and then run `sudo`, which is a setuid process that looks at /etc/sudo.conf to decide whether your escalation is allowed, how do you secure it?

How do you even begin to do distributed permissions if everything's looking at /etc/passwd and /etc/group in the current process' namespace to decide who you are?

POSIX is very much built on the idea of a canonical view of the filesystem, and plan9 is built on a vfs that may as well be sand.

[lizknope]

Capabilities were supposed to split up the need to having a single root account that could do everything. I'm not sure how far it has gone.

https://tbhaxor.com/understanding-linux-capabilities/

https://blog.container-solutions.com/linux-capabilities-in-p...

[stormbrew]

They're a good step but they're really a step in a different direction, even though capabilities are at the heart of how plan9 does permissions as well. Plan9 capabilities are more like kerberos tokens, so you get them from privileged services and then can use them to perform privileged actions.

Linux capabilities don't really change any of the issues around namespace security because they don't inherently provide a way to elevate privileges without setuid.

[DarylZero]

In modern Linux this is no problem. You can now give a process its own UID namespace. In the calling namespace its UID is non-zero, but in its own namespace it's root.

[stormbrew]

I dunno about the sibling comment's "backwards" comment but the thing here is that the goal isn't to prevent a user process from obtaining privileges, which is what uid namespaces are for.

This is the kind of thing I mean about "not knowing what you don't know," because you're looking at namespaces through the lens linux does, which is that they exist to limit capabilities.

Plan 9 uses namespaces to allow users to control their own environment. It's not a special operation, it's just a thing you do all the time.

For a small practical example: there's no PATH environment variable in plan9. You just union mount things into /bin, and /bin is where your shell looks for things to run. It's that much of an every day operation.

If you put a user under a uid namespace in linux, and then give them the right to create their own filesystem namespaces then sure, you've enabled them to potentially do things like this. But you've also blocked them from escalating their privileges, because now they can't use setuid binaries to obtain "real root" or whatever.

So you're left with one or the other: either you can manage your own namespace, but you have to be protected from potentially breaching root security through a setuid or cap flag on a binary; or you have to be prevented from managing your namespace outright in order to avoid lying to sudo about who can do what.

[DarylZero]

The thing about `sudo` is confusing because you don't even need to modify the namespace to overwrite `/etc/sudoers` if you have root. You just need to write to the file.

What it sounds like plan9 is doing is giving a local view of the root that local processes see. Which Linux can do too. Not with the same use-cases in mind as Plan9 though, as such capabilities were added for sandboxing/containerization. But the mechanisms are probably(?) general enough to do Plan9 in Linux.

A `sudo` that is seeing a local view of the root is going to have privileged access to that local root, not to the global system root. And that is correct. That is what sudo does. It gives root access to the same root that contains /etc, not to any "outer" or "more global" root.

It doesn't mean you can't have any access to the global root from the local root though. There are many ways to arrange such privilege escalation. (They do have to be arranged, of course, by someone writing the userspace code -- like sudo had to be written.)

>If you put a user under a uid namespace in linux, and then give them the right to create their own filesystem namespaces then sure, you've enabled them to potentially do things like this. But you've also blocked them from escalating their privileges, because now they can't use setuid binaries to obtain "real root" or whatever.

Privileged processes can have a global view of the namespace while the user does not. An ordinary setuid binary on a filesystem the user controls can't get a global view, only because the user does not (should not) have authority to do that. A process with the global view and root can grant the authority though.

The important thing, it seems to me, is that the global outer namespace can grant to the process local namespace any capabilities available through the outer namespace. I'm not sure if this is 100% completed but the ongoing containerization efforts do involve reaching toward that 100% mark.

[ori_b]

> The thing about `sudo` is confusing because you don't even need to modify the namespace to overwrite `/etc/sudoers` if you have root. You just need to write to the file.

The point is that you DONT have root, and you DONT have access to write to the file. But you're free to rearrange your namespace WITHOUT having root, and you want to arrange for SOME users to escalate privileges and, say, debug the kernel. Or do something else dangerous that requires elevated privileges in the global context.

> A `sudo` that is seeing a local view of the root is going to have privileged access to that local root, not to the global system root. And that is correct. That is what sudo does. It gives root access to the same root that contains /etc, not to any "outer" or "more global" root.

Yes, and that's a concise description of the flaw: you can't use suid+file based privilege escalation to modify system-wide configuration, without restricting the ability to manage freely your namespace.

This is what unix does by design, and why the authentication design from unix isn't going to work for systems used in the style of plan 9.

[DarylZero]

You can use suid programs to do what they do. You can use other mechanisms to do other things.

Suid programs on Plan9 could not possibly behave any differently. If the user rebinds `/bin` and then runs a suid program that calls other programs, that suid program cannot use the rebound `/bin`. That kind of binding simply can't be allowed to cross security contexts.

[stormbrew]

setuid does not exist on plan9.

[stormbrew]

> But the mechanisms are probably(?) general enough to do Plan9 in Linux.

They are not. The whole point of this subthread is that the ability to create namespaces as an unprivileged user[1] would be key to actually 'doing plan9 in linux'. You can not believe that if you want, but I'd suggest you read up a bit more on plan9 if so, because it becomes obvious pretty quick that it's the case.

[1] And here by 'unprivileged user' I mean someone who is still a user of the machine, and not a user who has been containered away into a separate user namespace, let alone into a whole docker-style container.

[ori_b]

You understood the problem backwards. How do you give out actual, real, global root, without taking away the ability to do arbitrary namespaces?

[sillysaurusx]

I feel like plan9 nerds (of which I’m one) are missing the point. People are asking “what’s so special about plan9?” and the best response is some esoteric point about a thing people empirically don’t want to do? Who cares?

There has to be a better answer than “Wow, I can make my computer that can’t run anything people want to run secure in a hypothetical hierarchical organization structure of permissions that can each have their own subtree sudo. I even call it treedo, ha-ha!” .. it just doesn’t resonate.

[stormbrew]

I dunno I think the positives are all actually pretty practical. Probably even more so today where heterogeneous computing is so much more common than it was in the 90s.

I would frequently love to have the ability to just mount a bunch of cpus off a beefier machine onto my laptop and take advantage of that to speed up my builds. I can use DISTCC but holy hell is it a lot more complicated to set up.

Or like, mounting a zip file as a directory, without needing a whole enormous systemd or gnome hairball along with fuse or gfs to make it happen as a regular user. Or hell, mount a usb stick even!

These are literally things I wish were easier every day as a software developer. The vaguely plan9-shaped bits that have been added to linux over the years have brought me no closer to them.

[DarylZero]

Fuse is how it works on Linux. Fuse is the mechanism the kernel provides to do this. So the proviso "without needing ... fuse ... to make it happen as a regular user" is terminal.

[stormbrew]

You can't mount even a fuse filesystem without root privileges (or an equivalent narrow capability). Mount is a privileged operation in linux, and it has to be for the reasons I've outlined.

In plan9 mount is not a privileged operation. Anyone can do it at any time for any reason. It does not impact or interact with the security of the system (except that you can implicitly remove access to things by unmounting them).

[ori_b]

The problem here is boring and practical: how do you make `bind` (or, in Linux land) `mount --bind` secure and still allow you to authenticate as a separate user, elevate permissions to change kernel config, and so on?

The authentication mechanisms on most Linuxes are based around suid binaries that read configuration files in order to decide on what to do, so if you can bind in a namespace, you can fool the authentication mechanisms.

In plan 9, this is solved with the kernel capability device. It's not particularly exciting, it's just one of the things that need to happen when you remove the concept of a global 'root user' from the system.

[DarylZero]

I think you're right that I don't understand the problem.

If you want to give actual real global root, I think you can do it by having a gifting process put the real global root process into the same process namespace as the giftee process.

[ori_b]

And how does that interact with binding files as non-root, including /etc/sudoers.conf?

(plan 9 has no suid, so this is not a problem there)

[DarylZero]

I said more about that in the thread already.