public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ben Woodard <woodard@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, roland@frob.com,
	"Mark A. Grondona" <grondona1@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix child thread's introspection of /proc/self/exe
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:13:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130326111335.GA23786@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5150F5C0.70205@redhat.com>

On 03/25, Ben Woodard wrote:
>
> Allow threads other than the main thread to do introspection of files in
> proc without relying on read permissions. proc_pid_follow_link() calls
> proc_fd_access_allowed() which ultimately calls __ptrace_may_access().
>
> Though this allows additional access to some proc files, we do not
> believe that this has any unintended security implications. However it
> probably needs to be looked at carefully.
>
> The original problem was a thread of a process whose permissions were
> 111 couldn't open its own /proc/self/exe This was interfering with a
> special purpose debugging tool. A simple reproducer is below.:

To clarify, the test-case fails if the executable is not readable.

This is because setup_new_exec()->would_dump() notices that
inode_permission(MAY_READ) fails and then we do set_dumpable(suid_dumpable).
After that __ptrace_may_access()->get_dumpable() fails.

It is not clear why proc_pid_readlink/etc should check get_dumpable(),
perhaps we could add PTRACE_MODE_NODUMPABLE. But this is offtopic and
I think the patch is fine anyway.

> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct
> *task, unsigned int mode)
>          */
>         int dumpable = 0;
>         /* Don't let security modules deny introspection */
> -       if (task == current)
> +       if (same_thread_group(task, current))
>                 return 0;
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         tcred = __task_cred(task);

I agree. I think that any security checks are pointless in this case,
both tasks have the same ->mm.

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>


      reply	other threads:[~2013-03-26 11:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-26  1:11 [PATCH] Fix child thread's introspection of /proc/self/exe Ben Woodard
2013-03-26 11:13 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]

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=20130326111335.GA23786@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=grondona1@llnl.gov \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roland@frob.com \
    --cc=woodard@redhat.com \
    /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