Use the same pattern everywhere in the e2e test
harness, use busybox (from dockerhub) instead
of using the one from k8s.gcr.io registry.
Change-Id: I57c3b867408c1f9478a8909c26744ea0368ff003
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/cherry-picks.md">here</a>.
Fixes for HostIPC tests to work when Docker has SELinux support enabled.
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Fixes for HostIPC tests to work when Docker has SELinux support enabled.
**Which issue(s) this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged)*:
N/A
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
The core of the matter is to use `ipcs` from util-linux rather than the one from busybox. The typical SELinux policy has enough to allow Docker containers (running under svirt_lxc_net_t SELinux type) to access IPC information by reading the contents of the files under /proc/sysvipc/, but not by using the shmctl etc. syscalls.
The `ipcs` implementation in busybox will use `shmctl(0, SHM_INFO, ...)` to detect whether it can read IPC info (see source code [here](https://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/util-linux/ipcs.c?h=1_28_0#n138)), while the one in util-linux will prefer to read from the /proc files directly if they are available (see source code [here](https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/blob/v2.27.1/sys-utils/ipcutils.c#L108)).
It turns out the SELinux policy doesn't allow the shmctl syscalls in an unprivileged container, while access to it through the /proc interface is fine. (One could argue this is a bug in the SELinux policy, but getting it fixed on stable OSs is hard, and it's not that hard for us to test it with an util-linux `ipcs`, so I propose we do so.)
This PR also contains a refactor of the code setting IpcMode, since setting it in the "common options" function is misleading, as on containers other than the sandbox, it ends up always getting overwritten, so let's only set it to "host" in the Sandbox.
It also has a minor fix for the `ipcmk` call, since support for size suffix was only introduced in recent versions of it.
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
This ensures the `ipcs` command from util-linux will be used, which
succeeds when Docker is running with SELinux enabled (while the one from
busybox fails.)
Tested: On a host with Docker running with SELinux enabled:
$ make test-e2e-node REMOTE=true FOCUS="host IPC"
• [SLOW TEST:17.272 seconds] (passed)
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating a pod in the host IPC namespace
should show the shared memory ID in the host IPC containers
• [SLOW TEST:20.419 seconds] (passed)
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating a pod in the host IPC namespace
should not show the shared memory ID in the non-hostIPC containers
Ran 2 of 257 Specs in 43.934 seconds
SUCCESS! -- 2 Passed | 0 Failed | 0 Pending | 255 Skipped
Expand the use of "1M" to the corresponding number of bytes, since
support for size suffix was only added to `ipcmk` in util-linux 2.27
which is not yet available in some Linux distributions.
Tested by running `make test-e2e-node` against distributions with ipcmk
that supports and doesn't support the suffix syntax, all of them passed.
A bug in the SELinux policy prevented NoNewPrivileges from working on
Docker with SELinux support enabled.
The problem has been fixed upstream:
https://github.com/projectatomic/container-selinux/issues/45
But hasn't been backported yet (a fix might come in RHEL 7.5)
For now, let's skip the NoNewPrivileges test when SELinux support is
enabled in Docker.
Tested:
- Before this commit, the test fails:
$ make test-e2e-node REMOTE=true FOCUS="allow privilege escalation"
(on a host with SELinux enabled)
• [SLOW TEST:22.798 seconds] (passed)
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should allow privilege escalation when true
• Failure [16.539 seconds]
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should not allow privilege escalation when false [It]
wait for pod "alpine-nnp-false-aef03e47-0090-11e8-886f-42010af00009" to success
Expected success, but got an error:
<*errors.errorString | 0xc4204e26d0>: {
s: "pod \"alpine-nnp-false-aef03e47-0090-11e8-886f-42010af00009\" failed with reason: \"\", message: \"\"",
}
pod "alpine-nnp-false-aef03e47-0090-11e8-886f-42010af00009" failed with reason: "", message: ""
• [SLOW TEST:26.572 seconds] (passed)
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should allow privilege escalation when not explicitly set and uid != 0
Ran 3 of 257 Specs in 45.364 seconds
FAIL! -- 2 Passed | 1 Failed | 0 Pending | 254 Skipped
Ginkgo ran 1 suite in 49.389123442s
Test Suite Failed
- After this commit, the test is skipped:
$ make test-e2e-node REMOTE=true FOCUS="allow privilege escalation"
(on a host with SELinux enabled)
S [SKIPPING] in Spec Setup (BeforeEach) [12.452 seconds]
S [SKIPPING] in Spec Setup (BeforeEach) [16.298 seconds]
S [SKIPPING] in Spec Setup (BeforeEach) [18.183 seconds]
Ran 0 of 257 Specs in 39.174 seconds
SUCCESS! -- 0 Passed | 0 Failed | 0 Pending | 257 Skipped
Ginkgo ran 1 suite in 43.570630357s
Test Suite Passed
- No changes when SELinux is disabled:
$ make test-e2e-node REMOTE=true FOCUS="allow privilege escalation"
(on a host with SELinux disabled)
• [SLOW TEST:15.013 seconds]
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should not allow privilege escalation when false
• [SLOW TEST:19.155 seconds]
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should allow privilege escalation when true
• [SLOW TEST:21.087 seconds]
[k8s.io] Security Context
when creating containers with AllowPrivilegeEscalation
should allow privilege escalation when not explicitly set and uid != 0
Ran 3 of 259 Specs in 38.560 seconds
SUCCESS! -- 3 Passed | 0 Failed | 0 Pending | 256 Skipped
Ginkgo ran 1 suite in 41.937918928s
Test Suite Passed
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 49725, 50367, 50391, 48857, 50181)
Add e2e test for privileged containers
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This PR adds node e2e test for privileged containers.
**Which issue this PR fixes**
Part of #44118.
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
/assign @Random-Liu
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add waitForFailure for e2e test framework
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Add waitForFailure for e2e test framework, this could reduce the reliance on logs.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*:
Part of #44118. Refer https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/48858#discussion_r128331726
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 49651, 49707, 49662, 47019, 49747)
Add support for `no_new_privs` via AllowPrivilegeEscalation
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Implements kubernetes/community#639
Fixes#38417
Adds `AllowPrivilegeEscalation` and `DefaultAllowPrivilegeEscalation` to `PodSecurityPolicy`.
Adds `AllowPrivilegeEscalation` to container `SecurityContext`.
Adds the proposed behavior to `kuberuntime`, `dockershim`, and `rkt`. Adds a bunch of unit tests to ensure the desired default behavior and that when `DefaultAllowPrivilegeEscalation` is explicitly set.
Tests pass locally with docker and rkt runtimes. There are also a few integration tests with a `setuid` binary for sanity.
**Release note**:
```release-note
Adds AllowPrivilegeEscalation to control whether a process can gain more privileges than it's parent process
```
Mayank Gaikwad