mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, tixxdz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] procfs: add permission checks on the file's opener of /proc/*/stat
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:39:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <524B7934.9070606@amacapital.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1380659178-28605-7-git-send-email-tixxdz@opendz.org>

On 10/01/2013 01:26 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> Some fields of the /proc/*/stat are sensitive fields that need
> appropriate protection.
> 
> However, /proc file descriptors can be passed to a more privileged
> process (e.g. a suid-exec) which will pass the classic
> ptrace_may_access() permission check during read().
> 
> To prevent it, use proc_same_open_cred() to detect if current's cred
> have changed between ->open() and ->read(), if so, call
> proc_allow_access() to check if the original file's opener had enough
> permissions to read these sensitive fields. This will prevent passing
> file descriptors to a more privileged process to leak data.
> 
> The patch also adds a previously missing signal->cred_guard_mutex lock.
> 
> This patch does not break userspace since it only hides the fields that
> were supposed to be protected.
> 
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Signed-off-by: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>
> ---
>  fs/proc/array.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
> index cbd0f1b..f034e05 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/array.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>  	char state;
>  	pid_t ppid = 0, pgid = -1, sid = -1;
>  	int num_threads = 0;
> -	int permitted;
> +	int permitted = 0;
>  	struct mm_struct *mm;
>  	unsigned long long start_time;
>  	unsigned long cmin_flt = 0, cmaj_flt = 0;
> @@ -404,10 +404,22 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>  	unsigned long rsslim = 0;
>  	char tcomm[sizeof(task->comm)];
>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct file *file = m->private;
> +	int same_cred = proc_same_open_cred(file->f_cred);
> +	unsigned int ptrace_mode = PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT;
>  
>  	state = *get_task_state(task);
>  	vsize = eip = esp = 0;
> -	permitted = ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT);
> +
> +	if (!mutex_lock_killable(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex)) {
> +		permitted = ptrace_may_access(task, ptrace_mode);
> +		if (permitted && !same_cred)
> +			permitted = proc_allow_access(file->f_cred,
> +						      task, ptrace_mode);
> +
> +		mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
> +	}
> +

else permitted = false?

But surely this would be *much* more comprehensible if you had
proc_allow_access do the entire check.

--Andy

--Andy

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-02  1:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-01 20:26 [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] procfs: add proc_same_open_cred() to check if the cred have changed Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] procfs: add proc_allow_access() to check if file's opener may access task Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02  1:36   ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 14:55     ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:44       ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 14:36         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:12           ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 19:29             ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 19:37               ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 20:13                 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 21:09                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04  8:59                     ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 15:40                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 18:23                         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 18:34                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:11                             ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 19:16                               ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:27                                 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 19:32                                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 19:41                                     ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04 22:17                                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 22:55                                         ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-04 22:59                                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-04 23:08                                             ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-05  0:35                                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-09 10:35                                               ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-05 13:23                                         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-07 21:41                                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-09 10:54                                             ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-09 11:15                                               ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-09 17:27                                               ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-13 10:18                                                 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] procfs: Document the proposed solution to protect procfs entries Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] procfs: make /proc/*/{stack,syscall} 0400 Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] procfs: make /proc entries that use seq files able to access file->f_cred Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] procfs: add permission checks on the file's opener of /proc/*/stat Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02  1:39   ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2013-10-02 15:14     ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:46       ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 19:00         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] procfs: add permission checks on the file's opener of /proc/*/personality Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/stack Djalal Harouni
2013-10-01 20:26 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] procfs: improve permission checks on /proc/*/syscall Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02  1:40 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 14:37   ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 16:51     ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 17:48       ` Kees Cook
2013-10-02 18:00         ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-02 18:07           ` Kees Cook
2013-10-03 23:14             ` Julien Tinnes
2013-10-02 18:26           ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:41             ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:22         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:35           ` Kees Cook
2013-10-02 18:48             ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 19:43               ` Kees Cook
2013-10-03  6:12               ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 12:29                 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:15                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 15:40                     ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 15:50                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-10-03 18:37                         ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-04  9:05                 ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-02 18:12       ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03  6:22         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 12:56           ` Djalal Harouni
2013-10-03 13:39             ` Ingo Molnar

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=524B7934.9070606@amacapital.net \
    --to=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=tixxdz@gmail.com \
    --cc=tixxdz@opendz.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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

Powered by JetHome