linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Stephen Wilson <wilsons@start.ca>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	security@kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] taskstats: restrict access to user
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 21:45:40 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110704174540.GA3321@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCnzmjaddz-ihxJ_qme28S==BAPGRmC2j3iE5fqm8TPi0knA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Balbir,

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 08:27 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Would it be possible to audit the entire taskstats structure to see
> what fields should and should not be exposed. If a particular field
> should not be exposed, we can fill it in with a special value
> indicating additional permission is required to see it and fill in
> those fields only when credentials match like you've shown
> 
> Does that make sense?

I'm afraid there is no universal opinion about it.  My point is
(almost) all this information (unless it can be gathered more simple
way) can be used by an attacker in one or another situation (highly
conditional, he might have to win a race(s), etc.), which might not be
approved by other developers without a proof.

The review would be reduced to trying to exploit some programs using
this information (so, it would be still incomplete).  I don't feel
myself enough experienced in such types of exploitation to (a) imagine
the abstract attack scenario and (b) find a program this attack would be
targeted to.

The already known danger is these io fields.  I *suspect* scheduler,
timer, page faults, exit status, and memory related information can be
used in situations where changing these fields might reveal the very
fact of some private computation.  These are only my thoughts and I
couldn't find any more or less realistic scenario of exploitation.

ac_comm and credential fields values show the same information as procfs
files, but I still want to introduce configuration mechanism with a
separate patch to restrict these fields (both in taskstats and procfs)
to complicate attacker's job of probing system specific information.


So, I cannot fully answer to your question, sorry.

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-04 17:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-24 12:09 [PATCH 2/2] taskstats: restrict access to user Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-06-29  1:27 ` Balbir Singh
2011-06-29 11:42   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-06-29 20:17   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-02  7:36     ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04  2:57       ` Balbir Singh
2011-07-04 17:45         ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2011-07-07  8:55           ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-07 11:53             ` Balbir Singh
2011-07-07 16:23               ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-09 15:36                 ` Balbir Singh
2011-07-11 14:07                   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-06-29 20:09 ` [Security] " Linus Torvalds
2011-06-30  7:57   ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-06-30 10:59     ` Balbir Singh
2011-06-30 12:08       ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-06-30 16:40       ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-01  3:02         ` Balbir Singh
2011-09-19 16:40           ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-19 17:20             ` Balbir Singh
2011-09-19 17:39             ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-09-19 17:45               ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-20  3:35                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-09-20  5:47                 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2011-09-19 17:47               ` Balbir Singh
2011-09-19 18:29             ` Andi Kleen
2011-09-19 18:32               ` 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=20110704174540.GA3321@albatros \
    --to=segoon@openwall.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.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 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).