From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@canonical.com>,
Markku Savela <msa@moth.iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Capabilities still can't be inherited by normal programs
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:20:40 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121205222040.GB14884@sergelap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVsrJSt8oYnh+y32Lrxw6Yk=Cp_e07Qf=fLbVfORvzUNg@mail.gmail.com>
Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@amacapital.net):
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@amacapital.net):
> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> >> > Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@amacapital.net):
> >> >> >> d) If I really wanted, I could emulate execve without actually doing
> >> >> >> execve, and capabilities would be inherited.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you could modify the executable properties of the binary that has
> >> >> > the privilege to wield a privilege then you are either exploiting an
> >> >> > app bug, or doing something the privileged binary has been trusted to
> >> >> > do.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not what I mean. I would:
> >> >>
> >> >> fork()
> >> >> munmap everything
> >> >> mmap ld.so
> >> >> set up a fake initial stack and the right fd or mapping or whatever
> >> >> just to ld-linux.so
> >> >>
> >> >> That's almost execve, and privilege inheritance works.
> >> >
> >> > But of course that is why you only want to fill fI on programs you trust
> >> > not to do that. What you are arguing is that you want to give fI on
> >> > programs you don't trust anyway, and so heck why not just give it on
> >> > everything.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Huh? I'd set fP on a program I expect to do *exactly* that (or use
> >> actual in-kernel capability inheritance, which I would find vastly
> >> more pleasant). If I give a program a capability (via fP or fI & pI),
> >> then I had better trust it not to abuse that capability. Having it
> >> pass that capability on to a child helper process would be just fine
> >> with me *because it already has that capability*.
> >>
> >> The problem with the current inheritance mechanism is that it's very
> >> difficult to understand what it means for an fI bit or a pI bit to be
> >> set. Saying "set a pI bit using pam if you want to grant permission
> >> to that user to run a particular program with fI set" is crap -- it
> >> only works if there is exactly one binary on the system with that bit
> >> set. In any case, a different administrator or package might use it
> >> for something different.
> >>
> >> Suppose I use the (apparently) current suggested approach: I install a
> >> fI=cap_net_raw copy of tcpdump somewhere. Then I write a helper that
> >> has fP=cap_new_raw and invokes that copy of tcpdump after appropriate
> >> validation of parameters. All is well.
> >
> > Since you're writing a special helper, you can surely have it validate
> > the userid and make it so the calling user doesn't have to have
> > cap_net_raw in pI?
>
> I can and did.
Oh, oops, I mis-understood what you meant was the problem.
Yup, that is a real limitation.
Yes, with the posix file caps you will be disappointed unless you see
pI=X as "this user may run any program which is Inh-trusted with X" and
fI=X as "this program may be run with X by any user Inh-trusted with X".
It almost makes me want to say that there should be an execve-analogue
to prctl(PR_SET_KEEPCAPS), which says caps will remain unchanged for one
execve. Or perhaps an intermediate securebits state between
!SECBIT_NOROOT and SECBIT_NOROOT, which automatically transitions after
the first execve to SECBIT_NOROOT.
> The mere presence of a cap_net_raw+i tcpdump binary is more or less
> equivalent to saying that users with cap_net_raw in pI can capture
> packets. I've just prevented pI=cap_net_raw from meaning anything
> less than "can capture packets". So I think we should bite the bullet
> and just let programs opt in (via some appropriately careful
> mechanism) to real capability inheritance.
By real you mean more precise. I think it'd be very interesting to get
together with Markku and learn more from the N9 experiment!
Markku, are there any post-mortem analysis papers we can read for
starters? Andy would not be trying to restrict root in general, so
the ramification you cited may not necessarily be relevant.
-serge
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-05 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-02 3:04 Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-02 17:21 ` Andrew G. Morgan
2012-12-02 18:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-02 22:26 ` Andrew G. Morgan
2012-12-02 23:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-03 2:20 ` Andrew G. Morgan
2012-12-03 4:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-04 13:54 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-12-05 19:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-05 20:12 ` Markku Savela
2012-12-05 21:05 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-12-05 21:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-05 22:20 ` Serge Hallyn [this message]
2012-12-07 0:57 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-07 14:42 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-12-07 17:00 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-07 17:07 ` Andrew G. Morgan
2012-12-07 18:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-08 22:33 ` Andrew G. Morgan
2012-12-08 23:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-08 23:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-12 18:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-12 18:45 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-12-19 13:14 ` Pádraig Brady
2012-12-10 14:59 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-12-10 15:47 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-10 16:27 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-12-10 18:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-10 19:13 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-10 19:31 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-10 19:51 ` Casey Schaufler
2012-12-10 19:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-10 20:17 ` Kees Cook
2012-12-10 18:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-12-10 14:36 ` Serge Hallyn
[not found] ` <CALQRfL6UWLFpTfvan9oirtLdozJqZX4oZwDuQFVnJp8MP06C_Q@mail.gmail.com>
2012-12-10 14:27 ` Serge Hallyn
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=20121205222040.GB14884@sergelap \
--to=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=msa@moth.iki.fi \
--cc=serge@canonical.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®