From: serge@hallyn.com
To: "Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br>
Cc: serge@hallyn.com, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
buraphalinuxserver@gmail.com, elendil@planet.nl,
stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: remove cap_task_kill()
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:26:34 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080229212634.GA7278@vino.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080229174007.0a934cc6@mandriva.com.br>
Quoting Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino (lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br):
> Em Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:38:17 -0600
> serge@hallyn.com escreveu:
>
> | The original justification for cap_task_kill() was as follows:
> |
> | check_kill_permission() does appropriate uid equivalence checks.
> | However with file capabilities it becomes possible for an
> | unprivileged user to execute a file with file capabilities
> | resulting in a more privileged task with the same uid.
> |
> | However now that cap_task_kill() always returns 0 (permission
> | granted) when p->uid==current->uid, the whole hook is worthless,
> | and only likely to create more subtle problems in the corner cases
> | where it might still be called but return -EPERM. Those cases
> | are basically when uids are different but euid/suid is equivalent
> | as per the check in check_kill_permission().
> |
> | This patch removes cap_task_kill().
>
> 2.6.24 seems to have the same bug, what about a rediff for it and
> submit the patch to -stable team?
Luiz, could you confirm that the below works?
thanks,
-serge
>From c77b7d418933c14707383f06a1da61169e84071b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:14:57 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: remove cap_task_kill()
The original justification for cap_task_kill() was as follows:
check_kill_permission() does appropriate uid equivalence checks.
However with file capabilities it becomes possible for an
unprivileged user to execute a file with file capabilities
resulting in a more privileged task with the same uid.
However now that cap_task_kill() always returns 0 (permission
granted) when p->uid==current->uid, the whole hook is worthless,
and only likely to create more subtle problems in the corner cases
where it might still be called but return -EPERM. Those cases
are basically when uids are different but euid/suid is equivalent
as per the check in check_kill_permission().
This patch removes cap_task_kill().
Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
---
include/linux/security.h | 3 +--
security/capability.c | 1 -
security/commoncap.c | 39 ---------------------------------------
3 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
index ac05083..d842ee3 100644
--- a/include/linux/security.h
+++ b/include/linux/security.h
@@ -62,7 +62,6 @@ extern int cap_inode_need_killpriv(struct dentry *dentry);
extern int cap_inode_killpriv(struct dentry *dentry);
extern int cap_task_post_setuid (uid_t old_ruid, uid_t old_euid, uid_t old_suid, int flags);
extern void cap_task_reparent_to_init (struct task_struct *p);
-extern int cap_task_kill(struct task_struct *p, struct siginfo *info, int sig, u32 secid);
extern int cap_task_setscheduler (struct task_struct *p, int policy, struct sched_param *lp);
extern int cap_task_setioprio (struct task_struct *p, int ioprio);
extern int cap_task_setnice (struct task_struct *p, int nice);
@@ -2112,7 +2111,7 @@ static inline int security_task_kill (struct task_struct *p,
struct siginfo *info, int sig,
u32 secid)
{
- return cap_task_kill(p, info, sig, secid);
+ return 0;
}
static inline int security_task_wait (struct task_struct *p)
diff --git a/security/capability.c b/security/capability.c
index 9e99f36..2c6e06d 100644
--- a/security/capability.c
+++ b/security/capability.c
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ static struct security_operations capability_ops = {
.inode_need_killpriv = cap_inode_need_killpriv,
.inode_killpriv = cap_inode_killpriv,
- .task_kill = cap_task_kill,
.task_setscheduler = cap_task_setscheduler,
.task_setioprio = cap_task_setioprio,
.task_setnice = cap_task_setnice,
diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
index ea61bc7..6e9065c 100644
--- a/security/commoncap.c
+++ b/security/commoncap.c
@@ -527,40 +527,6 @@ int cap_task_setnice (struct task_struct *p, int nice)
return cap_safe_nice(p);
}
-int cap_task_kill(struct task_struct *p, struct siginfo *info,
- int sig, u32 secid)
-{
- if (info != SEND_SIG_NOINFO && (is_si_special(info) || SI_FROMKERNEL(info)))
- return 0;
-
- /*
- * Running a setuid root program raises your capabilities.
- * Killing your own setuid root processes was previously
- * allowed.
- * We must preserve legacy signal behavior in this case.
- */
- if (p->euid == 0 && p->uid == current->uid)
- return 0;
-
- /* sigcont is permitted within same session */
- if (sig == SIGCONT && (task_session_nr(current) == task_session_nr(p)))
- return 0;
-
- if (secid)
- /*
- * Signal sent as a particular user.
- * Capabilities are ignored. May be wrong, but it's the
- * only thing we can do at the moment.
- * Used only by usb drivers?
- */
- return 0;
- if (cap_issubset(p->cap_permitted, current->cap_permitted))
- return 0;
- if (capable(CAP_KILL))
- return 0;
-
- return -EPERM;
-}
#else
int cap_task_setscheduler (struct task_struct *p, int policy,
struct sched_param *lp)
@@ -575,11 +541,6 @@ int cap_task_setnice (struct task_struct *p, int nice)
{
return 0;
}
-int cap_task_kill(struct task_struct *p, struct siginfo *info,
- int sig, u32 secid)
-{
- return 0;
-}
#endif
void cap_task_reparent_to_init (struct task_struct *p)
--
1.5.2.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-29 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-28 17:38 serge
2008-02-28 19:14 ` BuraphaLinux Server
2008-02-28 19:42 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-02-29 20:40 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2008-02-29 21:26 ` serge [this message]
2008-03-03 12:50 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2008-03-05 19:17 ` Chris Friedhoff
2008-03-01 22:05 ` Andrew G. Morgan
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=20080229212634.GA7278@vino.hallyn.com \
--to=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=buraphalinuxserver@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
/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®