Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file's opener may access task

[Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>]

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.

> --Andy

-- 
Djalal Harouni
http://opendz.org