From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file's opener may access task
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:41:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131004194142.GA4524@dztty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUuMRMgJ1OV3-ZRQ5wwzSQsdf9tKY9iKesk1QJPtj6-qw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:32:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:16:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 07:34:08PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:40:01PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 02:09:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> Sorry, I described the obviously broken scenario incorrectly. Your
> >> >> patch breaks (in the absence of things like selinux) if a exec
> >> >> something setuid root.
> >> >>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I did the check in the proc_same_open_cred() function:
> >> >> > return (uid_eq(fcred->uid, cred->uid) &&
> >> >> > gid_eq(fcred->gid, cred->gid) &&
> >> >> > cap_issubset(cred->cap_permitted, fcred->cap_permitted));
> >> >>
> >> >> Which has nothing to do with anything. If that check fails, you're
> >> >> just going on to a different, WRONG check/.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Check if this is the same uid/gid and the capabilities superset!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But in the proc_allow_access() the capabilities superset is missing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So to fix it:
> >> >> > 1) if proc_same_open_cred() detects that cred have changed between
> >> >> > ->open() and ->read() then abort, return zero, the ->read(),write()...
> >> >>
> >> >> IMO yuck.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2) Improve the proc_allow_access() check by:
> >> >> > if this is the same user namespace then check uid/gid of f_cred on
> >> >> > target cred task, and the capabilities superset:
> >> >> > cap_issubset(tcred->cap_permitted, fcred->cap_permitted));
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If it fails let security_capable() or file_ns_capable() do its magic.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> NAK. You need to actually call the LSM. What if the reason to fail
> >> >> the request isn't that the writer gained capabilities -- what if the
> >> >> writer's selinux label changed?
> >> > Sorry I can't follow you here! Can you be more explicit please?
> >> >
> >> > For me we are already doing this during ptrace_may_access() on each
> >> > syscall, which will call LSM to inspect the privileges on each ->open(),
> >> > ->write()... So LSM hooks are already called. If you want to have more
> >> > LSM hooks, then perhaps that's another problem?
> >>
> >> Can you show me where, in your code, LSMs are asked whether the
> >> process calling read() is permitted to ptrace the process that the
> >> proc file points at?
> > Yes.
> > [PATCH v2 9/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/syscall
> >
> > ->read()
> > ->syscall_read()
> > ->lock_trace()
> > ->ptrace_may_access()
> > ->__ptrace_may_access()
> > ->security_ptrace_access_check()
> > ->yama_ptrace_access_check()
> > ->security_ops->ptrace_access_check()
> >
> >
> > And also for patch:
> > [PATCH v2 8/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/stack
> >
> > And during ->open() and ->read()
> >
> >
> > So sorry Andy, I don't follow what you are describing.
>
> And what parameters are you passing to security_ptrace_access_check?
> It's supposed to be f_cred, right? Because you want to make sure
> that, if the opener had some low-privilege label, the target has
> execed and gotten a more secure label, and the reader has a
> high-privilege label, that the opener's label is checked against the
> target's new label.
The current's cred each time.
Is there some mechanism to check what you describe?
> --Andy
>
> >
> >> --Andy
> >
> > --
> > Djalal Harouni
> > http://opendz.org
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Lutomirski
> AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
Djalal Harouni
http://opendz.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-04 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-01 20:26 [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] procfs: add proc_same_open_cred() to check if the cred have changed Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file's opener may access task Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 1:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 14:55 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 14:36 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 19:29 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 19:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 20:13 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 21:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 8:59 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 15:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 18:23 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 18:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:11 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 19:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:27 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 19:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:41 ` Djalal Harouni [this message]
2013-10-04 22:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 22:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-04 22:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 23:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-05 0:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-09 10:35 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-05 13:23 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-07 21:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-09 10:54 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-09 11:15 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-09 17:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-13 10:18 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] procfs: Document the proposed solution to protect procfs entries Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] procfs: make /proc/*/{stack,syscall} 0400 Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] procfs: make /proc entries that use seq files able to access file->f_cred Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] procfs: add permission checks on the file's opener of /proc/*/stat Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 1:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 15:14 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 19:00 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] procfs: add permission checks on the file's opener of /proc/*/personality Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/stack Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/syscall Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 1:40 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 14:37 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 17:48 ` Kees Cook
2013-10-02 18:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 18:07 ` Kees Cook
2013-10-03 23:14 ` Julien Tinnes
2013-10-02 18:26 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:41 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:22 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:35 ` Kees Cook
2013-10-02 18:48 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 19:43 ` Kees Cook
2013-10-03 6:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 12:29 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 15:40 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 18:37 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 9:05 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:12 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 6:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 12:56 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 13:39 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20131004194142.GA4524@dztty \
--to=tixxdz@opendz.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com \
--cc=tixxdz@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).