From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: joeyli <jlee@suse.com>
Cc: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / Sleep: Check the file capability when writing wake lock interface
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:40:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181231104055.GB27420@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181231093851.GN3506@linux-l9pv.suse>
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 05:38:51PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 03:48:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 09:28:56PM +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > The wake lock/unlock sysfs interfaces check that the writer must has
> > > CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND capability. But the checking logic can be bypassed
> > > by opening sysfs file within an unprivileged process and then writing
> > > the file within a privileged process. The tricking way has been exposed
> > > by Andy Lutomirski in CVE-2013-1959.
> >
> > Don't you mean "open by privileged and then written by unprivileged?"
> > Or if not, exactly how is this a problem? You check the capabilities
> > when you do the write and if that is not allowed then, well
> >
>
> Sorry for I didn't provide clear explanation.
>
> The privileged means CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND but not file permission. The file permission
> has already relaxed for non-root user. Then the expected behavior is that non-root
> process must has CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND capability for writing wake_lock sysfs.
>
> But, the CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND restrict can be bypassed:
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> int fd, ret = 0;
>
> fd = open("/sys/power/wake_lock", O_RDWR);
> if (fd < 0)
> err(1, "open wake_lock");
>
> if (dup2(fd, 1) != 1) // overwrite the stdout with wake_lock
> err(1, "dup2");
> sleep(1);
> execl("./string", "string"); //string has capability
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> This program is an unpriviledged process (has no CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND), it opened
> wake_lock sysfs and overwrited stdout. Then it executes the "string" program
> that has CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND.
That's the problem right there, do not give CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND rights to
"string". If any user can run that program, there's nothing the kernel
can do about this, right? Just don't allow that program on the system :)
> The string program writes to stdout, which means that it writes to
> wake_lock. So an unpriviledged opener can trick an priviledged writer
> for writing sysfs.
That sounds like a userspace program that was somehow given incorrect
rights by the admin, and a user is taking advantage of it. That's not
the kernel's fault.
> > And you are checking the namespace of the person trying to do the write
> > when the write happens, which is correct here, right?
> >
> > If you really want to mess with wake locks in a namespaced environment,
> > then put it in a real namespaced environment, which is {HUGE HINT} not
> > sysfs.
> >
>
> I don't want to mess with wake locks in namespace.
Neither do I :)
so all should be fine, don't allow crazy executables with odd
permissions to be run by any user and you should be fine. That's always
been the case, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-31 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-30 13:28 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] sysfs: Add hook for checking the file capability of opener Lee, Chun-Yi
2018-12-30 13:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] sysfs: Add hook for checking the file capable for opener Lee, Chun-Yi
2018-12-30 13:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / Sleep: Check the file capability when writing wake lock interface Lee, Chun-Yi
2018-12-30 14:48 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-12-31 9:38 ` joeyli
2018-12-31 10:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2018-12-31 12:02 ` Jann Horn
2018-12-31 12:33 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-12-31 15:31 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-30 14:45 ` [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] sysfs: Add hook for checking the file capability of opener Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-12-31 9:41 ` joeyli
2018-12-31 10:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
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=20181231104055.GB27420@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=ggherdovich@suse.cz \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jlee@suse.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=joeyli.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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