All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Adrian Ratiu" <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com>
To: "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "Guenter Roeck" <groeck@chromium.org>,
	"Doug Anderson" <dianders@chromium.org>,
	"Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] proc: allow restricting  /proc/pid/mem writes
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:31:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <158ea-65e30000-105-38e7da00@91796698> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202403011451.C236A38@keescook>

On Saturday, March 02, 2024 01:55 EET, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:34:42PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > Prior to v2.6.39 write access to /proc/<pid>/mem was restricted,
> > after which it got allowed in commit 198214a7ee50 ("proc: enable
> > writing to /proc/pid/mem"). Famous last words from that patch:
> > "no longer a security hazard". :)
> > 
> > Afterwards exploits appeared started causing drama like [1]. The
> 
> nit: I think "appeared" can be dropped here.
> 
> > /proc/*/mem exploits can be rather sophisticated like [2] which
> > installed an arbitrary payload from noexec storage into a running
> > process then exec'd it, which itself could include an ELF loader
> > to run arbitrary code off noexec storage.
> > 
> > As part of hardening against these types of attacks, distrbutions
> > can restrict /proc/*/mem to only allow writes when they makes sense,
> > like in case of debuggers which have ptrace permissions, as they
> > are able to access memory anyway via PTRACE_POKEDATA and friends.
> > 
> > Dropping the mode bits disables write access for non-root users.
> > Trying to `chmod` the paths back fails as the kernel rejects it.
> > 
> > For users with CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE (usually just root) we have to
> > disable the mem_write callback to avoid bypassing the mode bits.
> > 
> > Writes can be used to bypass permissions on memory maps, even if a
> > memory region is mapped r-x (as is a program's executable pages),
> > the process can open its own /proc/self/mem file and write to the
> > pages directly.
> > 
> > Even if seccomp filters block mmap/mprotect calls with W|X perms,
> > they often cannot block open calls as daemons want to read/write
> > their own runtime state and seccomp filters cannot check file paths.
> > Write calls also can't be blocked in general via seccomp.
> > 
> > Since the mem file is part of the dynamic /proc/<pid>/ space, we
> > can't run chmod once at boot to restrict it (and trying to react
> > to every process and run chmod doesn't scale, and the kernel no
> > longer allows chmod on any of these paths).
> > 
> > SELinux could be used with a rule to cover all /proc/*/mem files,
> > but even then having multiple ways to deny an attack is useful in
> > case on layer fails.
> 
> Everything above here is good to keep in the commit log, but it's all
> the "background". Please also write here what has been done to address
> the background above it. e.g.:
> 
> "Introduce a CONFIG and a __ro_after_init runtime toggle to make
> it so only processes that are already tracing the task to write to
> /proc/<pid>/mem." etc
> 
> > 
> > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/476947/
> > [2] https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40089045
> 
> These can be:
> 
> Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/476947/ [1]
> Link: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40089045 [2]
> 
> > Based on an initial patch by Mike Frysinger <vapier@chromium.org>.
> > 
> > Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> > Co-developed-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@chromium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@chromium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >  * Added boot time parameter with default kconfig option
> >  * Moved check earlier in mem_open() instead of mem_write()
> >  * Simplified implementation branching
> >  * Removed dependency on CONFIG_MEMCG
> 
> Can you mention in the commit log what behaviors have been tested with
> this patch? For example, I assume gdb still works with
> restrict_proc_mem_write=y ?
> 

Thanks, I will address all the above commit message feedback in v3.

Yes, gdb and gdbserver work with restrict_proc_mem_write=y. My testing is
focused on the correct functioning of GDB and gdbserver (lldb/server use 
ptrace POKEDATA so they work regardless of restrict_proc_mem_write).

This all started from my attempt to fix gdbserver by adding a ptrace fallback
in case /proc/pid/mem writes are blocked without any exception, because
that breaks basic functionality like setting breakpoints.

GDB upstream NAK'ed my ptrace fallback approach because it's doesn't
work well with their /proc/pid/mem focused design required for non-stop 
mode (the default all-stop mode is emulated on top of non-stop), as well
as ptrace peek/poke requiring a live task which can cause memory access
problems if the ptraced task dies.

Other solutions were considered by GDB upstream, including using the 
process_vm_writev & co, but they respect page permissions and GDB has
to write RO pages to set breakpoints.

In the end GDB maintainers directed me to do a proper kernel fix with an
exception for tasks already ptracing others, because from a security
perspective, they can already access tracee memory regardless of
/proc/pid/mem restrictions, so here we are. :)

> When this is enabled, what _does_ break that people might expect to
> work?

With the current iteration, all things I tested work as expected. It is rather
hard to come up with things that break with restrict_proc_mem_write=y,
because other than debuggers and exploits I don't have other use-cases.

Obvious things like "echo >/proc/self/mem" get permission denied, but
that is expected with restrict_proc_mem_write=y, so I wouldn't classify
it as breakage.

In theory there might be some weird/legacy apps which might break, so
that is why I suggest we land the mechanism as default off, and later,
after it gets tested in various distributions, pull the trigger to make it
default on.

> 
> > ---
> >  .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  4 ++
> >  fs/proc/base.c                                | 47 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  security/Kconfig                              | 22 +++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 460b97a1d0da..0647e2f54248 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -5618,6 +5618,10 @@
> >  	reset_devices	[KNL] Force drivers to reset the underlying device
> >  			during initialization.
> >  
> > +	restrict_proc_mem_write= [KNL]
> 
> Please add here:
> 
> 			Format: <bool>
> 

Ack, will do in v3.

> > +			Enable or disable write access to /proc/*/mem files.
> > +			Default is SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON.
> > +
> >  	resume=		[SWSUSP]
> >  			Specify the partition device for software suspend
> >  			Format:
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> > index 98a031ac2648..92f668191312 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > @@ -152,6 +152,30 @@ struct pid_entry {
> >  		NULL, &proc_pid_attr_operations,	\
> >  		{ .lsmid = LSMID })
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE
> 
> Please drop this CONFIG entirely -- it should be always available for
> all builds of the kernel. Only CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON
> needs to remain.
> 

Ack, will do in v3.

> > +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE_RO(CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON,
> > +			   restrict_proc_mem_write);
> > +static int __init early_restrict_proc_mem_write(char *buf)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	bool bool_result;
> > +
> > +	ret = kstrtobool(buf, &bool_result);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (bool_result)
> > +		static_branch_enable(&restrict_proc_mem_write);
> > +	else
> > +		static_branch_disable(&restrict_proc_mem_write);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("restrict_proc_mem_write", early_restrict_proc_mem_write);
> > +# define PROC_PID_MEM_MODE S_IRUSR
> > +#else
> > +# define PROC_PID_MEM_MODE (S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR)
> > +#endif
> 
> PROC_PID_MEM_MODE will need to be a __ro_after_init variable, set by
> early_restrict_proc_mem_write, otherwise the mode won't change based on
> the runtime setting. e.g.:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON
> mode_t proc_pid_mem_mode __ro_after_init = S_IRUSR;
> #else
> mode_t proc_pid_mem_mode __ro_after_init = (S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
> #endif
> 
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE_RO(CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON,
> 			   restrict_proc_mem_write);
> ...
> 	if (bool_result) {
> 		static_branch_enable(&restrict_proc_mem_write);
> 		proc_pid_mem_mode = S_IRUSR;
> 	} else {
> 		static_branch_disable(&restrict_proc_mem_write);
> 		proc_pid_mem_mode = (S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR);
> 	}
> ...
> 	REG("mem",        proc_pid_mem_mode, proc_mem_operations),
> 
> 

Ack, will do in v3.

> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Count the number of hardlinks for the pid_entry table, excluding the .
> >   * and .. links.
> > @@ -829,6 +853,25 @@ static int mem_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >  {
> >  	int ret = __mem_open(inode, file, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE
> 
> Drop this ifdef (as mentioned above).
> 
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm = file->private_data;
> > +	struct task_struct *task = get_proc_task(inode);
> > +
> > +	if (mm && task) {
> > +		/* Only allow writes by processes already ptracing the target task */
> > +		if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE &&
> > +		    static_branch_maybe(CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON,
> > +					&restrict_proc_mem_write)) {
> 
> Do we need to also do an mm_access() on the task to verify that the task
> we're about to check has its mm still matching file->private_data? The
> PID can change out from under us (but the mm cannot).
> 

Likely yes, will look into this for v3.

> > +			rcu_read_lock();
> > +			if (!ptracer_capable(current, mm->user_ns) ||
> > +			    current != ptrace_parent(task))
> 
> If you're just allowing "already ptracing", why include the
> ptracer_capable() check?
> 

It is a very good observation that the check is redundant. :)

It is a remnant from a previous iteration of this patch, from
when I was proposing solutions to GDB upstream. I left it there
because it doesn't do much harm to verify capability as well,
more of a precaution / test invariant than anything else.

I'll remove it in v3 since it might cause confusion.

> > +				ret = -EACCES;
> > +			rcu_read_unlock();
> > +		}
> > +		put_task_struct(task);
> > +	}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  	/* OK to pass negative loff_t, we can catch out-of-range */
> >  	file->f_mode |= FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET;
> >  
> > @@ -3281,7 +3324,7 @@ static const struct pid_entry tgid_base_stuff[] = {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> >  	REG("numa_maps",  S_IRUGO, proc_pid_numa_maps_operations),
> >  #endif
> > -	REG("mem",        S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR, proc_mem_operations),
> > +	REG("mem",        PROC_PID_MEM_MODE, proc_mem_operations),
> >  	LNK("cwd",        proc_cwd_link),
> >  	LNK("root",       proc_root_link),
> >  	LNK("exe",        proc_exe_link),
> > @@ -3631,7 +3674,7 @@ static const struct pid_entry tid_base_stuff[] = {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> >  	REG("numa_maps", S_IRUGO, proc_pid_numa_maps_operations),
> >  #endif
> > -	REG("mem",       S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR, proc_mem_operations),
> > +	REG("mem",       PROC_PID_MEM_MODE, proc_mem_operations),
> >  	LNK("cwd",       proc_cwd_link),
> >  	LNK("root",      proc_root_link),
> >  	LNK("exe",       proc_exe_link),
> > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
> > index 412e76f1575d..ffee9e847ed9 100644
> > --- a/security/Kconfig
> > +++ b/security/Kconfig
> > @@ -19,6 +19,28 @@ config SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT
> >  
> >  	  If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
> >  
> > +config SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE
> > +	bool "Restrict /proc/*/mem write access"
> > +	default n
> > +	help
> > +	  This restricts writes to /proc/<pid>/mem, except when the current
> > +	  process ptraces the /proc/<pid>/mem task, because a ptracer already
> > +	  has write access to the tracee memory.
> > +
> > +	  Write access to this file allows bypassing memory map permissions,
> > +	  such as modifying read-only code.
> > +
> > +	  If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
> > +
> > +config SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_DEFAULT_ON
> > +	bool "Default state of /proc/*/mem write restriction"
> > +	depends on SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE
> > +	default y
> > +	help
> > +	  /proc/*/mem write access is controlled by kernel boot param
> > +	  "restrict_proc_mem_write" and this config chooses the default
> > +	  boot state.
> 
> As mentioned, I'd say merge the help texts here, but drop
> SECURITY_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE.
> 

Ack, will do in v3.

> > +
> >  config SECURITY
> >  	bool "Enable different security models"
> >  	depends on SYSFS
> > -- 
> > 2.30.2
> > 
> 
> Thanks for this! I look forward to turning it on. :)
>

Thank you very much for all your feedback!
It is much appreciated.

I'll wait a few more days before sending v3 to let others
comment, then address everything.
 
> -Kees
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook


  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-02 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-01 21:34 [PATCH v2] proc: allow restricting /proc/pid/mem writes Adrian Ratiu
2024-03-01 23:55 ` Kees Cook
2024-03-02 10:31   ` Adrian Ratiu [this message]
2024-03-04 14:06   ` Adrian Ratiu
2024-03-04 17:42     ` Kees Cook
2024-03-04 13:20 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-04 13:48   ` Adrian Ratiu
2024-03-04 14:05     ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-04 14:35       ` Adrian Ratiu
2024-03-04 17:56         ` Kees Cook
2024-03-04 17:49   ` Kees Cook
2024-03-05  8:59     ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-05  9:41       ` Kees Cook
2024-03-05  9:58         ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-05 10:12           ` Kees Cook
2024-03-05 10:32             ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-05 18:37               ` Kees Cook
2024-03-05 19:34                 ` Adrian Ratiu
2024-03-05 19:38                   ` Kees Cook
2024-03-06 10:31                 ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-05 11:03           ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-05 18:33             ` Kees Cook
2024-03-06 10:49             ` Matt Denton
2024-03-05 15:38         ` Adrian Ratiu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=158ea-65e30000-105-38e7da00@91796698 \
    --to=adrian.ratiu@collabora.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=groeck@chromium.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel@collabora.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=vapier@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.