From: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, joe@perches.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, dan.j.rosenberg@gmail.com,
eldad@fogrefinery.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com,
jkosina@suse.cz, keescook@chromium.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v3a] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:04:11 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525875DB.9030300@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131011044232.11545.qmail@science.horizon.com>
On 11/10/13 15:42, George Spelvin wrote:
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>> Sigh. This is all wrong. The only correct thing to test is
>> file->f_cred. Aka the capabilities of the program that opened the
>> file.
>>
>> Which means that the interface to %pK in the case of kptr_restrict is
>> broken as it has no way to be passed the information it needs to make
>> a sensible decision.
>
> I looked at the code, and pretty painful. Certainly it's possible to
> include a reference to the file (I was thinking of just the credentials,
> actually) in the seq_file. But getting that to the vsprintf.c code
> (specifically, the pointer() function) is a PITA.
>
> I'm willing to accept the currently proposed kludge as a "good enough"
> approximation, as long as we're all agreed that using the credentials
> at open() time would be The Right Thing, and hopefully someone will find
> the round tuitts to implement that in future.
>
> But in the meantime, "the perfect is the enemey of the good" is worth
> remembering.
>
> (An alternate implementation I've been thinking about would be to do
> away with %pK, and instead have a "secret_ptr(p, seq->cred)" helper that
> returned p or 0 depending on the credential.)
I've been looking at this approach. The majority of %pK uses are in
seq_files, so George's suggestion will work fine there.
There are a handful of instances in printk() statements. I don't think
%pK can ever make sense from printk(), because it is basically impossible
to do any sane permission check. If a setuid binary does some action
with elevated which causes printk() to be called then the user might see
leaked kernel pointers. The correct way to prevent this is to use
dmesg_restrict and not allow normal users to see the syslog.
The only remaining problem is kernel/module.c:module_sect_show() which
is used to write the sysfs files in /sys/module/<modname>/sections/.
Those files are actually are really good target for leaking %pK values
via setuid binaries. The problem is that the module_sect_show() function
isn't passed information about who opened the sysfs file. I don't think
this information is available in general for sysfs files either. Also,
I can't actually see how module_sect_show() gets called?
I'm a bit stuck on how to solve this. Any ideas?
~Ryan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, joe@perches.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, dan.j.rosenberg@gmail.com,
eldad@fogrefinery.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com,
jkosina@suse.cz, keescook@chromium.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3a] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:04:11 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525875DB.9030300@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131011044232.11545.qmail@science.horizon.com>
On 11/10/13 15:42, George Spelvin wrote:
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>> Sigh. This is all wrong. The only correct thing to test is
>> file->f_cred. Aka the capabilities of the program that opened the
>> file.
>>
>> Which means that the interface to %pK in the case of kptr_restrict is
>> broken as it has no way to be passed the information it needs to make
>> a sensible decision.
>
> I looked at the code, and pretty painful. Certainly it's possible to
> include a reference to the file (I was thinking of just the credentials,
> actually) in the seq_file. But getting that to the vsprintf.c code
> (specifically, the pointer() function) is a PITA.
>
> I'm willing to accept the currently proposed kludge as a "good enough"
> approximation, as long as we're all agreed that using the credentials
> at open() time would be The Right Thing, and hopefully someone will find
> the round tuitts to implement that in future.
>
> But in the meantime, "the perfect is the enemey of the good" is worth
> remembering.
>
> (An alternate implementation I've been thinking about would be to do
> away with %pK, and instead have a "secret_ptr(p, seq->cred)" helper that
> returned p or 0 depending on the credential.)
I've been looking at this approach. The majority of %pK uses are in
seq_files, so George's suggestion will work fine there.
There are a handful of instances in printk() statements. I don't think
%pK can ever make sense from printk(), because it is basically impossible
to do any sane permission check. If a setuid binary does some action
with elevated which causes printk() to be called then the user might see
leaked kernel pointers. The correct way to prevent this is to use
dmesg_restrict and not allow normal users to see the syslog.
The only remaining problem is kernel/module.c:module_sect_show() which
is used to write the sysfs files in /sys/module/<modname>/sections/.
Those files are actually are really good target for leaking %pK values
via setuid binaries. The problem is that the module_sect_show() function
isn't passed information about who opened the sysfs file. I don't think
this information is available in general for sysfs files either. Also,
I can't actually see how module_sect_show() gets called?
I'm a bit stuck on how to solve this. Any ideas?
~Ryan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-11 22:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-09 21:52 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v3] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 21:52 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:00 ` [kernel-hardening] " Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:00 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:04 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:04 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:14 ` [kernel-hardening] " Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:14 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:25 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:25 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:33 ` [kernel-hardening] " Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:33 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-09 22:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 22:42 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 23:09 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v3a] " Joe Perches
2013-10-09 23:09 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-09 23:18 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 23:18 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-09 23:21 ` [kernel-hardening] " Joe Perches
2013-10-09 23:21 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-11 2:20 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-11 2:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-11 3:19 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 3:19 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 3:34 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-11 3:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-14 10:17 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-10-14 10:17 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-14 12:21 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2013-10-14 12:21 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-14 20:41 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-14 20:41 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 4:42 ` [kernel-hardening] " George Spelvin
2013-10-11 4:42 ` George Spelvin
2013-10-11 5:19 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 5:19 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 5:29 ` [kernel-hardening] " Joe Perches
2013-10-11 5:29 ` Joe Perches
2013-10-11 22:04 ` Ryan Mallon [this message]
2013-10-11 22:04 ` Ryan Mallon
2013-10-11 22:37 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-11 22:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-14 9:18 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ryan Mallon
2013-10-14 9:18 ` Ryan Mallon
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=525875DB.9030300@gmail.com \
--to=rmallon@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.rosenberg@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eldad@fogrefinery.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.