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
next prev parent 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