From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
rientjes@google.com, wilsons@start.ca, security@kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v3] proc: fix a race in do_io_accounting()
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:38:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110715063801.GC3166@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110706163412.GA4743@albatros>
Hi Linus,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 20:34 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> If inode's mode permits to open /proc/PID/io and the resulted file
> descriptor is kept across execve() of setuid or similar binary, the
> ptrace_may_access() check tries to prevent using this fd against the
> task with escalated privileges. Unfortunately, there is a race of the
> check against execve(). If execve() is processed after the ptrace
> check, but before the actual io information gathering, io statistics
> will be gathered from the privileged process. At least in theory this
> might lead to gathering sensible information (like ssh/ftp password
> length) that wouldn't be available otherwise.
>
> Holding task->signal->cred_guard_mutex while gathering the io
> information should protect against the race.
>
> The order of locking is similar to the one inside of
> ptrace_attach(): first goes cred_guard_mutex, then lock_task_sighand().
Any problems with the patch?
> v3 - better description.
> v2 - use mutex_lock_killable() instead of mutex_lock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 083a4f2..4b9f159 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -2711,9 +2711,16 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
> {
> struct task_io_accounting acct = task->ioac;
> unsigned long flags;
> + int result;
>
> - if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ))
> - return -EACCES;
> + result = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
> +
> + if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ)) {
> + result = -EACCES;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
>
> if (whole && lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
> struct task_struct *t = task;
> @@ -2724,7 +2731,7 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
>
> unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
> }
> - return sprintf(buffer,
> + result = sprintf(buffer,
> "rchar: %llu\n"
> "wchar: %llu\n"
> "syscr: %llu\n"
> @@ -2739,6 +2746,9 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
> (unsigned long long)acct.read_bytes,
> (unsigned long long)acct.write_bytes,
> (unsigned long long)acct.cancelled_write_bytes);
> +out_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + return result;
> }
>
> static int proc_tid_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer)
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
rientjes@google.com, wilsons@start.ca, security@kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] proc: fix a race in do_io_accounting()
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:38:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110715063801.GC3166@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110706163412.GA4743@albatros>
Hi Linus,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 20:34 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> If inode's mode permits to open /proc/PID/io and the resulted file
> descriptor is kept across execve() of setuid or similar binary, the
> ptrace_may_access() check tries to prevent using this fd against the
> task with escalated privileges. Unfortunately, there is a race of the
> check against execve(). If execve() is processed after the ptrace
> check, but before the actual io information gathering, io statistics
> will be gathered from the privileged process. At least in theory this
> might lead to gathering sensible information (like ssh/ftp password
> length) that wouldn't be available otherwise.
>
> Holding task->signal->cred_guard_mutex while gathering the io
> information should protect against the race.
>
> The order of locking is similar to the one inside of
> ptrace_attach(): first goes cred_guard_mutex, then lock_task_sighand().
Any problems with the patch?
> v3 - better description.
> v2 - use mutex_lock_killable() instead of mutex_lock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 083a4f2..4b9f159 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -2711,9 +2711,16 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
> {
> struct task_io_accounting acct = task->ioac;
> unsigned long flags;
> + int result;
>
> - if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ))
> - return -EACCES;
> + result = mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
> +
> + if (!ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ)) {
> + result = -EACCES;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
>
> if (whole && lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
> struct task_struct *t = task;
> @@ -2724,7 +2731,7 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
>
> unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
> }
> - return sprintf(buffer,
> + result = sprintf(buffer,
> "rchar: %llu\n"
> "wchar: %llu\n"
> "syscr: %llu\n"
> @@ -2739,6 +2746,9 @@ static int do_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer, int whole)
> (unsigned long long)acct.read_bytes,
> (unsigned long long)acct.write_bytes,
> (unsigned long long)acct.cancelled_write_bytes);
> +out_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> + return result;
> }
>
> static int proc_tid_io_accounting(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer)
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-15 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-03 10:39 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] proc: fix a race in do_io_accounting() Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 10:39 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 19:24 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 19:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-03 20:01 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 20:01 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 20:13 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v2] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 20:13 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 21:13 ` [kernel-hardening] " Andrew Morton
2011-07-05 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2011-07-06 16:34 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v3] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-06 16:34 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-15 6:38 ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2011-07-15 6:38 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-15 16:14 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2011-07-15 16:14 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20110715063801.GC3166@albatros \
--to=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=security@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wilsons@start.ca \
/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.