From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: allow protected cross-uid sticky symlinks Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:01:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20100601190102.GT31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20100601185248.GB4098@outflux.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Paris , Christoph Hellwig , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , Jiri Kosina , Dave Young , Martin Schwidefsky , David Howells , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Eric W. Biederman" , Tim Gardner , "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Kees Cook Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:59465 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755922Ab0FATBW (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:01:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100601185248.GB4098@outflux.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:52:48AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > A long-standing class of security issues is the symlink-based > time-of-check-time-of-use race, most commonly seen in world-writable > directories like /tmp. The common method of exploitation of this flaw > is to cross privilege boundaries when following a given symlink (i.e. a > root process follows a symlink belonging to another user). For a likely > incomplete list of hundreds of examples across the years, please see: > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=/tmp > > The solution is to permit symlinks to only be followed when outside a sticky > world-writable directory, or when the uid of the symlink and follower match, > or when the directory owner matches the symlink's owner. > > Some pointers to the history of earlier discussion that I could find: I don't buy it. If we are concerned about the symlinks in the middle of pathname, your checks are useless (mkdir /tmp/a, ln -s whatever /tmp/a/b, have victim open /tmp/a/b/something). If we are not, then your checks are in the wrong place. "The more we prohibit, the safer we are" is best left to the likes of TSA; if we are really interested in security and not in security theatre or BDSM fetishism, let's make sure that heuristics we use make sense.