mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Let even non-dumpable tasks access /proc/self/fd
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:07:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1152115646.29174.29.camel@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1veqwfiox.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 00:24 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:41:57 +0200
> > Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> >> All tasks calling setuid() from root to non-root during their lifetime
> >> will not be able to access their /proc/self/fd.  This is troublesome
> >> because the fstatat() and other *at() routines are emulated by accessing
> >> /proc/self/fd/*/path and that will break with setuid()ing programs,
> >> leading to various weird consequences (e.g. with the latest glibc,
> >> nftw() does not work with setuid()ing programs on ppc and furthermore
> >> causes the LSB testsuite to fail because of this).
> >
> > Odd. Did something actually change in glibc to make this start happening?
> >
> >> This kernel patch fixes the problem by letting the process access its
> >> own /proc/self/fd - as far as I can see, this should be reasonably safe
> >> since for the process, this does not reveal "anything new". Feel free to
> >> comment on this.
> >> 
> >
> > Eric, Chris - any thought on this one?
> 
> This can't fix the glibc emulation problem.  As the kernel
> this patch would apply to doesn't need emulation.
> 
> The basic goal of allowing the current process to access it's
> own proc directories is reasonable.
> 
> I don't like the implementation. It is not obvious that this case
> applies just to the current process.
> 
> I admit that any permission checking in /proc that happens at
> open time instead of at access time is buggy but that is
> the best we have right now.
> 
> Anything more requires a very close review.
> 
> 
> Eric

This might be a stupid question, but can someone explain to me why all
of this whole thing is keyed off of the dumpable flag? With the current
scheme setting suid_dumpable to true works around this problem, but that
doesn't seem like it's an intended behavior.

Also, I recently had someone report a problem where a program that
dropped its privileges was not able access /proc/self/maps. So making so
that we can access /proc/self/fd might not be sufficient.

Perhaps we should consider making this use a blacklist instead of a
whitelist approach? That is to make pid_revalidate to change the
ownership of anything under /proc/self to the euid irrespective of the
dumpable flag, except for things that we know need to retain the
previous ownership?

-- Jeff



      reply	other threads:[~2006-07-05 16:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-06-16 12:41 Petr Baudis
2006-06-20  3:48 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-20  6:24   ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-05 16:07     ` Jeff Layton [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=1152115646.29174.29.camel@dantu.rdu.redhat.com \
    --to=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pasky@suse.cz \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®