From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@redhat.com,
namhyung@kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
omosnace@redhat.com, serge@hallyn.com,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Require CAP_KILL if sigtrap is requested
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 16:41:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h7hdn24k.fsf@disp2133> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210701083842.580466-1-elver@google.com> (Marco Elver's message of "Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:38:43 +0200")
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:
> If perf_event_open() is called with another task as target and
> perf_event_attr::sigtrap is set, and the target task's user does not
> match the calling user, also require the CAP_KILL capability.
>
> Otherwise, with the CAP_PERFMON capability alone it would be possible
> for a user to send SIGTRAP signals via perf events to another user's
> tasks. This could potentially result in those tasks being terminated if
> they cannot handle SIGTRAP signals.
>
> Note: The check complements the existing capability check, but is not
> supposed to supersede the ptrace_may_access() check. At a high level we
> now have:
>
> capable of CAP_PERFMON and (CAP_KILL if sigtrap)
> OR
> ptrace_may_access() // also checks for same thread-group and uid
Is there anyway we could have a comment that makes the required
capability checks clear?
Basically I see an inlined version of kill_ok_by_cred being implemented
without the comments on why the various pieces make sense.
Certainly ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS) should not
be a check to allow writing/changing a task. It needs to be
PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS, like /proc/self/mem uses.
Now in practice I think your patch probably has the proper checks in
place for sending a signal but it is far from clear.
Eric
> Fixes: 97ba62b27867 ("perf: Add support for SIGTRAP on perf events")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.13+
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Drop kill_capable() and just check CAP_KILL (reported by Ondrej Mosnacek).
> * Use ns_capable(__task_cred(task)->user_ns, CAP_KILL) to check for
> capability in target task's ns (reported by Ondrej Mosnacek).
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index fe88d6eea3c2..43c99695dc3f 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -12152,10 +12152,23 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> }
>
> if (task) {
> + bool is_capable;
> +
> err = down_read_interruptible(&task->signal->exec_update_lock);
> if (err)
> goto err_file;
>
> + is_capable = perfmon_capable();
> + if (attr.sigtrap) {
> + /*
> + * perf_event_attr::sigtrap sends signals to the other
> + * task. Require the current task to have CAP_KILL.
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + is_capable &= ns_capable(__task_cred(task)->user_ns, CAP_KILL);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Preserve ptrace permission check for backwards compatibility.
> *
> @@ -12165,7 +12178,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> * perf_event_exit_task() that could imply).
> */
> err = -EACCES;
> - if (!perfmon_capable() && !ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS))
> + if (!is_capable && !ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS))
> goto err_cred;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-01 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-01 8:38 [PATCH v2] perf: Require CAP_KILL if sigtrap is requested Marco Elver
2021-07-01 21:41 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2021-07-02 7:20 ` Marco Elver
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=87h7hdn24k.fsf@disp2133 \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.