mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace_may_access
Subsystems (12)
PATCH 1/1 mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace_may_access
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in ptrace_may_access allows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (aka clone(CLONE_NEWUSER), unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), or setns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).
This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespace CAP_SYS_PTRACE must be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
The function ptrace_may_access is modified to verify that the ptracer has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in task->mm->user_ns instead of task->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.
---
It turns out that dumpable needs to be fixed to be user namespace aware to fix this issue. When this patch is ready I plan to place it in my userns tree and send it to Linus, hopefully for -rc2.
include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- kernel/ptrace.c | 17 ++++++----------- mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
include/linux/mm_types.h +1 -0
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ struct mm_struct {*/ struct task_struct __rcu *owner;#endif +struct user_namespace *user_ns;/* store ref to file /proc/<pid>/exe symlink points to */ struct file __rcu *exe_file;
kernel/fork.c +6 -3
@@ -742,7 +742,8 @@ static void mm_init_owner(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)#endif } -static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p) +static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p, +struct user_namespace *user_ns) { mm->mmap =NULL ; mm->mm_rb =RB_ROOT ;
@@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)if (init_new_context (p, mm)) goto fail_nocontext; + mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns);return mm; fail_nocontext:
@@ -827,7 +829,7 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_alloc(void)return NULL ;memset (mm,0 ,sizeof (*mm)); -return mm_init (mm, current); +return mm_init (mm, current,current_user_ns ()); }/*
@@ -842,6 +844,7 @@ void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)destroy_context (mm);mmu_notifier_mm_destroy (mm);check_mm (mm); +put_user_ns (mm->user_ns);free_mm (mm); }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__mmdrop);
@@ -1123,7 +1126,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)memcpy (mm, oldmm,sizeof (*mm)); -if (!mm_init (mm, tsk)) +if (!mm_init (mm, tsk, mm->user_ns)) goto fail_nomem; err =dup_mmap (mm, oldmm);
kernel/ptrace.c +6 -11
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int ptrace_has_cap(struct user_namespace *ns, unsigned int mode)static int __ptrace_may_access (struct task_struct *task,unsigned int mode) {const struct cred *cred =current_cred (), *tcred; -int dumpable =0 ; +struct mm_struct *mm;kuid_t caller_uid;kgid_t caller_gid;
@@ -271,16 +271,11 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)return -EPERM ; ok:rcu_read_unlock (); -smp_rmb (); -if (task->mm) - dumpable =get_dumpable (task->mm); -rcu_read_lock (); -if (dumpable !=SUID_DUMP_USER && - !ptrace_has_cap (__task_cred (task)->user_ns, mode)) { -rcu_read_unlock (); -return -EPERM ; - } -rcu_read_unlock (); + mm = task->mm; +if (!mm || + ((get_dumpable (mm) !=SUID_DUMP_USER ) && + !ptrace_has_cap (mm->user_ns, mode))) +return -EPERM ;return security_ptrace_access_check (task, mode); }
mm/init-mm.c +2 -0
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/atomic.h> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu.h>
@@ -21,5 +22,6 @@ struct mm_struct init_mm = { .mmap_sem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(init_mm.mmap_sem), .page_table_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_mm.page_table_lock), .mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_mm.mmlist), + .user_ns = &init_user_ns, INIT_MM_CONTEXT(init_mm) };
Signature · 1 line
2.8.3
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.
This looks good! Basically applies the same rules that already apply to EUID/... changes to namespace changes, and anyone entering a user namespace can now safely drop UIDs and GIDs to namespace root.
This integrates better in the existing security concept than my old patch "ptrace: being capable wrt a process requires mapped uids/gids", and it has less issues in cases where e.g. the extra privileges of an entering process are the filesystem root or so.
FWIW, if you want, you can add "Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>".
Quoted 131 lines
Fixes 8409cca70561 ("userns: allow ptrace from non-init user namespaces")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>---
It turns out that dumpable needs to be fixed to be user namespace aware to fix this issue. When this patch is ready I plan to place it in my userns tree and send it to Linus, hopefully for -rc2.
include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- kernel/ptrace.c | 17 ++++++----------- mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)include/linux/mm_types.h +1
-0@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ struct mm_struct {*/ struct task_struct __rcu *owner;#endif +struct user_namespace *user_ns;/* store ref to file /proc/<pid>/exe symlink points to */ struct file __rcu *exe_file;kernel/fork.c +6
-3@@ -742,7 +742,8 @@ static void mm_init_owner(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)#endif } -static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p) +static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p, +struct user_namespace *user_ns) { mm->mmap =NULL ; mm->mm_rb =RB_ROOT ;@@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)if (init_new_context (p, mm)) goto fail_nocontext; + mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns);return mm; fail_nocontext:@@ -827,7 +829,7 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_alloc(void)return NULL ;memset (mm,0 ,sizeof (*mm)); -return mm_init (mm, current); +return mm_init (mm, current,current_user_ns ()); }/* @@ -842,6 +844,7 @@ void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)destroy_context (mm);mmu_notifier_mm_destroy (mm);check_mm (mm); +put_user_ns (mm->user_ns);free_mm (mm); }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__mmdrop);@@ -1123,7 +1126,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)memcpy (mm, oldmm,sizeof (*mm)); -if (!mm_init (mm, tsk)) +if (!mm_init (mm, tsk, mm->user_ns)) goto fail_nomem; err =dup_mmap (mm, oldmm);kernel/ptrace.c +6
-11@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int ptrace_has_cap(struct user_namespace *ns, unsigned int mode)static int __ptrace_may_access (struct task_struct *task,unsigned int mode) {const struct cred *cred =current_cred (), *tcred; -int dumpable =0 ; +struct mm_struct *mm;kuid_t caller_uid;kgid_t caller_gid;@@ -271,16 +271,11 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)return -EPERM ; ok:rcu_read_unlock (); -smp_rmb (); -if (task->mm) - dumpable =get_dumpable (task->mm); -rcu_read_lock (); -if (dumpable !=SUID_DUMP_USER && - !ptrace_has_cap (__task_cred (task)->user_ns, mode)) { -rcu_read_unlock (); -return -EPERM ; - } -rcu_read_unlock (); + mm = task->mm; +if (!mm || + ((get_dumpable (mm) !=SUID_DUMP_USER ) && + !ptrace_has_cap (mm->user_ns, mode))) +return -EPERM ;return security_ptrace_access_check (task, mode); }mm/init-mm.c +2
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/atomic.h> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu.h> @@ -21,5 +22,6 @@ struct mm_struct init_mm = { .mmap_sem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(init_mm.mmap_sem), .page_table_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_mm.page_table_lock), .mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_mm.mmlist), + .user_ns = &init_user_ns, INIT_MM_CONTEXT(init_mm) };Signature · 1 line
2.8.3
Quoted 13 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.This looks good! Basically applies the same rules that already apply to EUID/... changes to namespace changes, and anyone entering a user namespace can now safely drop UIDs and GIDs to namespace root.
Yes. It just required the right perspective and it turned out to be straight forward to solve. Especially since it is buggy today for unreadable executables.
Quoted 7 lines
This integrates better in the existing security concept than my old patch "ptrace: being capable wrt a process requires mapped uids/gids", and it has less issues in cases where e.g. the extra privileges of an entering process are the filesystem root or so.
FWIW, if you want, you can add "Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>".
Will do. Thank you.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.
This looks good! Basically applies the same rules that already apply to EUID/... changes to namespace changes, and anyone entering a user namespace can now safely drop UIDs and GIDs to namespace root.
This integrates better in the existing security concept than my old patch "ptrace: being capable wrt a process requires mapped uids/gids", and it has less issues in cases where e.g. the extra privileges of an entering process are the filesystem root or so.
FWIW, if you want, you can add "Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>".
Quoted 131 lines
Fixes 8409cca70561 ("userns: allow ptrace from non-init user namespaces")---
It turns out that dumpable needs to be fixed to be user namespace aware to fix this issue. When this patch is ready I plan to place it in my userns tree and send it to Linus, hopefully for -rc2.
include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- kernel/ptrace.c | 17 ++++++----------- mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)include/linux/mm_types.h +1
-0@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ struct mm_struct {*/ struct task_struct __rcu *owner;#endif +struct user_namespace *user_ns;/* store ref to file /proc/<pid>/exe symlink points to */ struct file __rcu *exe_file;kernel/fork.c +6
-3@@ -742,7 +742,8 @@ static void mm_init_owner(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)#endif } -static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p) +static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p, +struct user_namespace *user_ns) { mm->mmap =NULL ; mm->mm_rb =RB_ROOT ;@@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)if (init_new_context (p, mm)) goto fail_nocontext; + mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns);return mm; fail_nocontext:@@ -827,7 +829,7 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_alloc(void)return NULL ;memset (mm,0 ,sizeof (*mm)); -return mm_init (mm, current); +return mm_init (mm, current,current_user_ns ()); }/* @@ -842,6 +844,7 @@ void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)destroy_context (mm);mmu_notifier_mm_destroy (mm);check_mm (mm); +put_user_ns (mm->user_ns);free_mm (mm); }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__mmdrop);@@ -1123,7 +1126,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)memcpy (mm, oldmm,sizeof (*mm)); -if (!mm_init (mm, tsk)) +if (!mm_init (mm, tsk, mm->user_ns)) goto fail_nomem; err =dup_mmap (mm, oldmm);kernel/ptrace.c +6
-11@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int ptrace_has_cap(struct user_namespace *ns, unsigned int mode)static int __ptrace_may_access (struct task_struct *task,unsigned int mode) {const struct cred *cred =current_cred (), *tcred; -int dumpable =0 ; +struct mm_struct *mm;kuid_t caller_uid;kgid_t caller_gid;@@ -271,16 +271,11 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)return -EPERM ; ok:rcu_read_unlock (); -smp_rmb (); -if (task->mm) - dumpable =get_dumpable (task->mm); -rcu_read_lock (); -if (dumpable !=SUID_DUMP_USER && - !ptrace_has_cap (__task_cred (task)->user_ns, mode)) { -rcu_read_unlock (); -return -EPERM ; - } -rcu_read_unlock (); + mm = task->mm; +if (!mm || + ((get_dumpable (mm) !=SUID_DUMP_USER ) && + !ptrace_has_cap (mm->user_ns, mode))) +return -EPERM ;return security_ptrace_access_check (task, mode); }mm/init-mm.c +2
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/atomic.h> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu.h> @@ -21,5 +22,6 @@ struct mm_struct init_mm = { .mmap_sem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(init_mm.mmap_sem), .page_table_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_mm.page_table_lock), .mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_mm.mmlist), + .user_ns = &init_user_ns, INIT_MM_CONTEXT(init_mm) };Signature · 1 line
2.8.3
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.
I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
Quoted 137 lines
Fixes 8409cca70561 ("userns: allow ptrace from non-init user namespaces")---
It turns out that dumpable needs to be fixed to be user namespace aware to fix this issue. When this patch is ready I plan to place it in my userns tree and send it to Linus, hopefully for -rc2.
include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- kernel/ptrace.c | 17 ++++++----------- mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)include/linux/mm_types.h +1
-0@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ struct mm_struct {*/ struct task_struct __rcu *owner;#endif +struct user_namespace *user_ns;/* store ref to file /proc/<pid>/exe symlink points to */ struct file __rcu *exe_file;kernel/fork.c +6
-3@@ -742,7 +742,8 @@ static void mm_init_owner(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)#endif } -static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p) +static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p, +struct user_namespace *user_ns) { mm->mmap =NULL ; mm->mm_rb =RB_ROOT ;@@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)if (init_new_context (p, mm)) goto fail_nocontext; + mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns);return mm; fail_nocontext:@@ -827,7 +829,7 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_alloc(void)return NULL ;memset (mm,0 ,sizeof (*mm)); -return mm_init (mm, current); +return mm_init (mm, current,current_user_ns ()); }/* @@ -842,6 +844,7 @@ void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)destroy_context (mm);mmu_notifier_mm_destroy (mm);check_mm (mm); +put_user_ns (mm->user_ns);free_mm (mm); }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__mmdrop);@@ -1123,7 +1126,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)memcpy (mm, oldmm,sizeof (*mm)); -if (!mm_init (mm, tsk)) +if (!mm_init (mm, tsk, mm->user_ns)) goto fail_nomem; err =dup_mmap (mm, oldmm);kernel/ptrace.c +6
-11@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int ptrace_has_cap(struct user_namespace *ns, unsigned int mode)static int __ptrace_may_access (struct task_struct *task,unsigned int mode) {const struct cred *cred =current_cred (), *tcred; -int dumpable =0 ; +struct mm_struct *mm;kuid_t caller_uid;kgid_t caller_gid;@@ -271,16 +271,11 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)return -EPERM ; ok:rcu_read_unlock (); -smp_rmb (); -if (task->mm) - dumpable =get_dumpable (task->mm); -rcu_read_lock (); -if (dumpable !=SUID_DUMP_USER && - !ptrace_has_cap (__task_cred (task)->user_ns, mode)) { -rcu_read_unlock (); -return -EPERM ; - } -rcu_read_unlock (); + mm = task->mm; +if (!mm || + ((get_dumpable (mm) !=SUID_DUMP_USER ) && + !ptrace_has_cap (mm->user_ns, mode))) +return -EPERM ;return security_ptrace_access_check (task, mode); }mm/init-mm.c +2
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/atomic.h> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu.h> @@ -21,5 +22,6 @@ struct mm_struct init_mm = { .mmap_sem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(init_mm.mmap_sem), .page_table_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_mm.page_table_lock), .mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_mm.mmlist), + .user_ns = &init_user_ns, INIT_MM_CONTEXT(init_mm) };Signature · 7 lines
2.8.3 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected] For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.
I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
Quoted 137 lines
Fixes 8409cca70561 ("userns: allow ptrace from non-init user namespaces")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>---
It turns out that dumpable needs to be fixed to be user namespace aware to fix this issue. When this patch is ready I plan to place it in my userns tree and send it to Linus, hopefully for -rc2.
include/linux/mm_types.h | 1 + kernel/fork.c | 9 ++++++--- kernel/ptrace.c | 17 ++++++----------- mm/init-mm.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)include/linux/mm_types.h +1
-0@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ struct mm_struct {*/ struct task_struct __rcu *owner;#endif +struct user_namespace *user_ns;/* store ref to file /proc/<pid>/exe symlink points to */ struct file __rcu *exe_file;kernel/fork.c +6
-3@@ -742,7 +742,8 @@ static void mm_init_owner(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)#endif } -static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p) +static struct mm_struct *mm_init (struct mm_struct *mm,struct task_struct *p, +struct user_namespace *user_ns) { mm->mmap =NULL ; mm->mm_rb =RB_ROOT ;@@ -782,6 +783,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)if (init_new_context (p, mm)) goto fail_nocontext; + mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns);return mm; fail_nocontext:@@ -827,7 +829,7 @@ struct mm_struct *mm_alloc(void)return NULL ;memset (mm,0 ,sizeof (*mm)); -return mm_init (mm, current); +return mm_init (mm, current,current_user_ns ()); }/* @@ -842,6 +844,7 @@ void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)destroy_context (mm);mmu_notifier_mm_destroy (mm);check_mm (mm); +put_user_ns (mm->user_ns);free_mm (mm); }EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (__mmdrop);@@ -1123,7 +1126,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *dup_mm(struct task_struct *tsk)memcpy (mm, oldmm,sizeof (*mm)); -if (!mm_init (mm, tsk)) +if (!mm_init (mm, tsk, mm->user_ns)) goto fail_nomem; err =dup_mmap (mm, oldmm);kernel/ptrace.c +6
-11@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int ptrace_has_cap(struct user_namespace *ns, unsigned int mode)static int __ptrace_may_access (struct task_struct *task,unsigned int mode) {const struct cred *cred =current_cred (), *tcred; -int dumpable =0 ; +struct mm_struct *mm;kuid_t caller_uid;kgid_t caller_gid;@@ -271,16 +271,11 @@ static int __ptrace_may_access(struct task_struct *task, unsigned int mode)return -EPERM ; ok:rcu_read_unlock (); -smp_rmb (); -if (task->mm) - dumpable =get_dumpable (task->mm); -rcu_read_lock (); -if (dumpable !=SUID_DUMP_USER && - !ptrace_has_cap (__task_cred (task)->user_ns, mode)) { -rcu_read_unlock (); -return -EPERM ; - } -rcu_read_unlock (); + mm = task->mm; +if (!mm || + ((get_dumpable (mm) !=SUID_DUMP_USER ) && + !ptrace_has_cap (mm->user_ns, mode))) +return -EPERM ;return security_ptrace_access_check (task, mode); }mm/init-mm.c +2
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <linux/cpumask.h> #include <linux/atomic.h> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> #include <asm/mmu.h> @@ -21,5 +22,6 @@ struct mm_struct init_mm = { .mmap_sem = __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(init_mm.mmap_sem), .page_table_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_mm.page_table_lock), .mmlist = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_mm.mmlist), + .user_ns = &init_user_ns, INIT_MM_CONTEXT(init_mm) };Signature · 7 lines
2.8.3 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Signature · 8 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 13 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups).
You're conflating things. Threads always share memory, but sharing memory doesn't imply being part of the same thread group.
Quoted 2 lines
What prevents those two to sit in different user
namespaces?
For thread groups: You can't change user namespace in a thread group with more than one task.
For shared mm: Yeah, I think that could happen - but it doesn't matter. The patch just needs the mm to determine the namespace in which the mm was created, and that's always the same for tasks that share mm.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the security/permission checking role of the user namespace.
Could this use of mm->user_ns be extended for some kind of accounting/limiting in the future? Possibly. I can imagine a limit on the total number of page table entries a group of processes are allowed to have as being a sane kind of limit in this setting much like RLIMIT_AS is sane on a single mm level. Pages don't belong to mm's so I can't imagine anything like the memcg being built on this kind of infrastructure.
Eric
Quoted 40 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
Quoted 4 lines
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.
How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)
Quoted 41 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 40 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
The better security when entering containers came from fixing the the check for unreadable files. Because that is fundamentally what the mm dumpable settings are for.
Quoted 6 lines
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)
That seems to be a part of this puzzle I have incompletely addressed, thank you.
It looks like I need to change either the owning user namespace or fail the exec. Malicious dynamic linkers are doubly interesting.
As mount name spaces are also owned if I have privileges I can address the possibility of a malicious dynamic linker that way. AKA who cares about the link if the owner of the mount namespace has permissions to read the file.
I am going to look at failing the exec if the owning user namespace of the mm would not have permissions to read the file. That should just be a couple of lines of code and easy to maintain. Plus it does not appear that non-readable executables are particularly common.
Eric
Quoted 48 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 46 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 44 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
The better security when entering containers came from fixing the the check for unreadable files. Because that is fundamentally what the mm dumpable settings are for.
Oh, interesting.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 6 lines
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)That seems to be a part of this puzzle I have incompletely addressed, thank you.
Quoted 7 lines
It looks like I need to change either the owning user namespace or fail the exec. Malicious dynamic linkers are doubly interesting.
As mount name spaces are also owned if I have privileges I can address the possibility of a malicious dynamic linker that way. AKA who cares about the link if the owner of the mount namespace has permissions to read the file.
If you just check the owner of the mount namespace, someone could still use a user namespace to chroot() the process. That should also be sufficient to get the evil linker in. I think it really needs to be the user namespace of the executing process that's checked, not the user namespace associated with some mount namespace.
Quoted 4 lines
I am going to look at failing the exec if the owning user namespace of the mm would not have permissions to read the file. That should just be a couple of lines of code and easy to maintain. Plus it does not appear that non-readable executables are particularly common.
Hm. Yeah, I guess mode 04111 probably isn't sooo common. From a security perspective, I think that should work.
Quoted 77 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 48 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 46 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 44 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
The better security when entering containers came from fixing the the check for unreadable files. Because that is fundamentally what the mm dumpable settings are for.
Oh, interesting.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 6 lines
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)That seems to be a part of this puzzle I have incompletely addressed, thank you.
Quoted 7 lines
It looks like I need to change either the owning user namespace or fail the exec. Malicious dynamic linkers are doubly interesting.
As mount name spaces are also owned if I have privileges I can address the possibility of a malicious dynamic linker that way. AKA who cares about the link if the owner of the mount namespace has permissions to read the file.
Quoted 5 lines
If you just check the owner of the mount namespace, someone could still use a user namespace to
chroot()the process. That should also be sufficient to get the evil linker in. I think it really needs to be the user namespace of the executing process that's checked, not the user namespace associated with some mount namespace.
Something. I will just note that this is hard to analyze and theoretically possible for now, since I don't intend to pursue that solution.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I am going to look at failing the exec if the owning user namespace of the mm would not have permissions to read the file. That should just be a couple of lines of code and easy to maintain. Plus it does not appear that non-readable executables are particularly common.
Hm. Yeah, I guess mode 04111 probably isn't sooo common. From a security perspective, I think that should work.
Well there is at least one common distro that installs sudo
that way so I would not say uncommon. But we already ignore
the suid and sgid bit when executing such executables as without having the uid or gid mapping into a user namespace suid and sgid can not be supported.
So the only case that could cause a real regression/loss of functionality is if there are unreadable executables without the suid or sgid bit set. I can't find any of those.
Patch for this second bug in a moment.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
PATCH 1/1 exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by not letting exec succeed if during exec an executable is not readable and the current user namespace capabilities do not apply to the executable's file.
While it happens that distros install some files setuid and non-readable I have not found any executable files just installed non-readalbe. Executables that are setuid to a user not mapped in a user namespace are worthless, so I don't expect this to introduce any problems in practice.
There may be a way to allow this execution to happen by setting mm->user_ns to a more privileged user namespace and watching out for the possibility of using dynamic linkers or other shared libraries that the kernel loads into the mm to bypass the read-only restriction. But the analysis is more difficult and it would require more code churn so I don't think the effort is worth it.
---
Tossing this out for review in case I missed something silly but this patch seems pretty trivial.
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_flat.c | 4 +++- fs/exec.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/binfmts.h | 6 +++++- 7 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c +3 -1
@@ -294,7 +294,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)set_personality (PER_LINUX );set_personality_ia32 (false); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; regs->cs = __USER32_CS; regs->r8 = regs->r9 = regs->r10 = regs->r11 = regs->r12 =
fs/binfmt_aout.c +3 -1
@@ -242,7 +242,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm * bprm)#else set_personality (PER_LINUX );#endif -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; current->mm->end_code = ex.a_text + (current->mm->start_code =N_TXTADDR (ex));
fs/binfmt_elf.c +3 -1
@@ -852,7 +852,9 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (!(current->personality &ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE ) && randomize_va_space) current->flags |=PF_RANDOMIZE ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto out_free_dentry;install_exec_creds (bprm);/* Do this so that we can load the interpreter, if need be. We will
fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c +3 -1
@@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static int load_elf_fdpic_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (elf_read_implies_exec (&exec_params.hdr, executable_stack)) current->personality |=READ_IMPLIES_EXEC ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto error;set_binfmt (&elf_fdpic_format);
fs/binfmt_flat.c +3 -1
@@ -524,7 +524,9 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,/* OK, This is the point of no return */ set_personality (PER_LINUX_32BIT ); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + ret =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (ret) + goto err; }/*
fs/exec.c +16 -3
@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */ +if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + } + } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump); -void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) +int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) {arch_pick_mmap_layout (current->mm);
@@ -1296,12 +1305,15 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)*/ current->mm->task_size =TASK_SIZE ; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); +if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ) +return -EPERM ; +/* install the new credentials */ if (!uid_eq (bprm->cred->uid,current_euid ()) || !gid_eq (bprm->cred->gid,current_egid ())) { current->pdeath_signal =0 ; }else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }
@@ -1311,6 +1323,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) current->self_exec_id++;flush_signal_handlers (current,0 );do_close_on_exec (current->files); +return 0 ; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (setup_new_exec);
include/linux/binfmts.h +5 -1
@@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ struct linux_binprm {#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 2#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* executable is inaccessible for performing exec */ +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 3 +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* Function parameter for binfmt->coredump */ struct coredump_params {const siginfo_t *siginfo;
@@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ extern int prepare_binprm(struct linux_binprm *);extern int __must_check remove_arg_zero (struct linux_binprm *);extern int search_binary_handler (struct linux_binprm *);extern int flush_old_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); -extern void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); +extern int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm);extern void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *,struct file *);extern int suid_dumpable;
Signature · 7 lines
2.8.3 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 123 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by not letting exec succeed if during exec an executable is not readable and the current user namespace capabilities do not apply to the executable's file.
While it happens that distros install some files setuid and non-readable I have not found any executable files just installed non-readalbe. Executables that are setuid to a user not mapped in a user namespace are worthless, so I don't expect this to introduce any problems in practice.
There may be a way to allow this execution to happen by setting
mm->user_nsto a more privileged user namespace and watching out for the possibility of using dynamic linkers or other shared libraries that the kernel loads into the mm to bypass the read-only restriction. But the analysis is more difficult and it would require more code churn so I don't think the effort is worth it.Reported-by Jann Horn <[email protected]>Fixes 9e4a36ece652 ("userns: Fail exec for suid and sgid binaries with ids outside our user namespace.")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>---
Tossing this out for review in case I missed something silly but this patch seems pretty trivial.
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_flat.c | 4 +++- fs/exec.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/binfmts.h | 6 +++++- 7 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c +3
-1@@ -294,7 +294,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)set_personality (PER_LINUX );set_personality_ia32 (false); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; regs->cs = __USER32_CS; regs->r8 = regs->r9 = regs->r10 = regs->r11 = regs->r12 =fs/binfmt_aout.c +3
-1@@ -242,7 +242,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm * bprm)#else set_personality (PER_LINUX );#endif -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; current->mm->end_code = ex.a_text + (current->mm->start_code =N_TXTADDR (ex));fs/binfmt_elf.c +3
-1@@ -852,7 +852,9 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (!(current->personality &ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE ) && randomize_va_space) current->flags |=PF_RANDOMIZE ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto out_free_dentry;install_exec_creds (bprm);/* Do this so that we can load the interpreter, if need be. We will fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c +3
-1@@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static int load_elf_fdpic_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (elf_read_implies_exec (&exec_params.hdr, executable_stack)) current->personality |=READ_IMPLIES_EXEC ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto error;set_binfmt (&elf_fdpic_format);fs/binfmt_flat.c +3
-1@@ -524,7 +524,9 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,/* OK, This is the point of no return */ set_personality (PER_LINUX_32BIT ); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + ret =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (ret) + goto err; }/* fs/exec.c +0
-1@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 )
fs/exec.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec); · line 1282
Quoted 10 lines
fs/exec.c +9
-0+struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */ +if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + }
This feels like it should belong inside inode_permission(file_inode(file), MAY_EXEC)
which hopefully should be checked long before getting here??
Quoted 61 lines
fs/exec.c +7
-2+ } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump); -void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) +int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) {arch_pick_mmap_layout (current->mm);@@ -1296,12 +1305,15 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)*/ current->mm->task_size =TASK_SIZE ; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); +if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ) +return -EPERM ; +/* install the new credentials */ if (!uid_eq (bprm->cred->uid,current_euid ()) || !gid_eq (bprm->cred->gid,current_egid ())) { current->pdeath_signal =0 ; }else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }@@ -1311,6 +1323,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) current->self_exec_id++;flush_signal_handlers (current,0 );do_close_on_exec (current->files); +return 0 ; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (setup_new_exec);include/linux/binfmts.h +5
-2@@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ struct linux_binprm {#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 2#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* executable is inaccessible for performing exec */ +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 3 +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* Function parameter for binfmt->coredump */ struct coredump_params {const siginfo_t *siginfo;@@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ extern int prepare_binprm(struct linux_binprm *);extern int __must_check remove_arg_zero (struct linux_binprm *);extern int search_binary_handler (struct linux_binprm *);extern int flush_old_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); -extern void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); +extern int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm);extern void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *,struct file *);extern int suid_dumpable; --2.8.3
Quoted 4 lines
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 15 lines · Amir Goldstein
Quoted 15 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-1@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec); · line 1282
Quoted 4 lines
fs/exec.c +4
-0+if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + }This feels like it should belong inside
inode_permission(file_inode(file), MAY_EXEC)
which hopefully should be checked long before getting here??
It is the active ingredient in capable_wrt_inode_uidgid and is indeed inside of inode_permission.
What I am testing for here is if I have a process with a full set of capabilities in current->mm->user_ns will the inode be readable.
I can see an argument for calling prepare_creds stuffing the new cred full of capabilities. Calling override_cred. Calling inode_permission, restoring the credentials. But it seems very much like overkill and more error prone because of the more code involved.
So I have done the simple thing that doesn't hide what is really going on.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 32 lines · ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
Quoted 15 lines · Amir Goldstein
Quoted 15 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-1@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */ Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec); · line 1282
Quoted 4 lines
fs/exec.c +4
-0+if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + }This feels like it should belong inside
inode_permission(file_inode(file), MAY_EXEC)
which hopefully should be checked long before getting here??It is the active ingredient in
capable_wrt_inode_uidgidand is indeed inside ofinode_permission.What I am testing for here is if I have a process with a full set of capabilities in
current->mm->user_nswill the inode be readable.
Quoted 6 lines
I can see an argument for calling
prepare_credsstuffing the new cred full of capabilities. Callingoverride_cred. Callinginode_permission, restoring the credentials. But it seems very much like overkill and more error prone because of the more code involved.So I have done the simple thing that doesn't hide what is really going on.
At the same time I can see the addition of a helper function bool ns_inode(struct user_namespace *user_ns, struct inode *inode)
{
return kuid_has_mapping(user_ns, inode->i_uid) &&
kgid_has_mapping(user_ns, inode->i_gid);
}That abstracts out the concept instead of open codes it.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAOQ4uxjyZF346vq-Oi=HwB=jj6ePycHBnEfvVPet9KqPxL9mgg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 15 lines · Amir Goldstein
Quoted 15 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-1@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec); · line 1282
Quoted 4 lines
fs/exec.c +4
-0+if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + }This feels like it should belong inside
inode_permission(file_inode(file), MAY_EXEC)
which hopefully should be checked long before getting here??
It is the active ingredient in capable_wrt_inode_uidgid and is indeed inside of inode_permission.
What I am testing for here is if I have a process with a full set of capabilities in current->mm->user_ns will the inode be readable.
I can see an argument for calling prepare_creds stuffing the new cred full of capabilities. Calling override_cred. Calling inode_permission, restoring the credentials. But it seems very much like overkill and more error prone because of the more code involved.
So I have done the simple thing that doesn't hide what is really going on.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87k2d5nytz.fsf_-_-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 123 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by not letting exec succeed if during exec an executable is not readable and the current user namespace capabilities do not apply to the executable's file.
While it happens that distros install some files setuid and non-readable I have not found any executable files just installed non-readalbe. Executables that are setuid to a user not mapped in a user namespace are worthless, so I don't expect this to introduce any problems in practice.
There may be a way to allow this execution to happen by setting
mm->user_nsto a more privileged user namespace and watching out for the possibility of using dynamic linkers or other shared libraries that the kernel loads into the mm to bypass the read-only restriction. But the analysis is more difficult and it would require more code churn so I don't think the effort is worth it.Reported-by Jann Horn <[email protected]>Fixes 9e4a36ece652 ("userns: Fail exec for suid and sgid binaries with ids outside our user namespace.")---
Tossing this out for review in case I missed something silly but this patch seems pretty trivial.
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_flat.c | 4 +++- fs/exec.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/binfmts.h | 6 +++++- 7 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c +3
-1@@ -294,7 +294,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)set_personality (PER_LINUX );set_personality_ia32 (false); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; regs->cs = __USER32_CS; regs->r8 = regs->r9 = regs->r10 = regs->r11 = regs->r12 =fs/binfmt_aout.c +3
-1@@ -242,7 +242,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm * bprm)#else set_personality (PER_LINUX );#endif -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; current->mm->end_code = ex.a_text + (current->mm->start_code =N_TXTADDR (ex));fs/binfmt_elf.c +3
-1@@ -852,7 +852,9 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (!(current->personality &ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE ) && randomize_va_space) current->flags |=PF_RANDOMIZE ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto out_free_dentry;install_exec_creds (bprm);/* Do this so that we can load the interpreter, if need be. We will fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c +3
-1@@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static int load_elf_fdpic_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (elf_read_implies_exec (&exec_params.hdr, executable_stack)) current->personality |=READ_IMPLIES_EXEC ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto error;set_binfmt (&elf_fdpic_format);fs/binfmt_flat.c +3
-1@@ -524,7 +524,9 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,/* OK, This is the point of no return */ set_personality (PER_LINUX_32BIT ); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + ret =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (ret) + goto err; }/* fs/exec.c +0
-1@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 )
fs/exec.c EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec); · line 1282
Quoted 10 lines
fs/exec.c +9
-0+struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */ +if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + }
This feels like it should belong inside inode_permission(file_inode(file), MAY_EXEC)
which hopefully should be checked long before getting here??
Quoted 65 lines
fs/exec.c +7
-2+ } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump); -void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) +int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) {arch_pick_mmap_layout (current->mm);@@ -1296,12 +1305,15 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)*/ current->mm->task_size =TASK_SIZE ; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); +if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ) +return -EPERM ; +/* install the new credentials */ if (!uid_eq (bprm->cred->uid,current_euid ()) || !gid_eq (bprm->cred->gid,current_egid ())) { current->pdeath_signal =0 ; }else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }@@ -1311,6 +1323,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) current->self_exec_id++;flush_signal_handlers (current,0 );do_close_on_exec (current->files); +return 0 ; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (setup_new_exec);include/linux/binfmts.h +5
-2@@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ struct linux_binprm {#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 2#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* executable is inaccessible for performing exec */ +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 3 +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* Function parameter for binfmt->coredump */ struct coredump_params {const siginfo_t *siginfo;@@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ extern int prepare_binprm(struct linux_binprm *);extern int __must_check remove_arg_zero (struct linux_binprm *);extern int search_binary_handler (struct linux_binprm *);extern int flush_old_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); -extern void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); +extern int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm);extern void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *,struct file *);extern int suid_dumpable; --2.8.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever? Simply ptrace yourself, exec the program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.
ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
--Andy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanQuoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever? Simply ptrace yourself, exec the program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.
ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 8 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever?
In this case it was a newish hole (2011) that the user namespace support added that I am closing. I am not super excited but I figure it is useful to make the kernel semantics at least as secure as they were before.
Quoted 9 lines
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Nope. check_unsafe_exec() sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags in bprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs and cap_bprm_set_creds() in commoncap.c. cap_bprm_set_creds() just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
Same thing happens if the fs struct is shared with another process or if NO_NEW_PRIVS is active.
(Actually, it's still a bit like normal setuid execution: IIRC AT_SECURE stays active, and the resulting process still won't be dumpable, so it's not possible for a *new* ptracer to attach afterwards. But this is just from memory, I'm not entirely sure.)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have CAP_SYS_PTRACE.
If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 37 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Quoted 7 lines
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have
CAP_SYS_PTRACE.If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
I would suggest leaving it alone. Changing it could break enough things that a sysctl would be needed, and I just don't see how this is a significant issue, especially since it's been insecure forever. Anyone who cares should do the stub executable trick:
/sbin/foo: 04755, literally just does execve("/sbin/foo-helper");
/sbin/foo-helper: 0500.
--Andy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 47 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 37 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Quoted 7 lines
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have
CAP_SYS_PTRACE.If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
Quoted 8 lines
I would suggest leaving it alone. Changing it could break enough things that a sysctl would be needed, and I just don't see how this is a significant issue, especially since it's been insecure forever. Anyone who cares should do the stub executable trick:
/sbin/foo: 04755, literally just doesexecve("/sbin/foo-helper");
/sbin/foo-helper: 0500.
I can't imagine what non-malware would depend on being able to circumvent file permissions and ptrace a read-only executable. Is there something you are thinking of?
I know I saw someone depending on read-only executables being read-only earlier this week on the security list, and it could definitely act as part of a counter measure to make binaries harder to exploit.
So given that people actually expect no-read permissions to be honored on executables (with what seem valid and sensible use cases), that I can't see any valid reason not to honor no-read permissions, that it takes a really convoluted setup to bypass the current no-read permissions, and that I can't believe anyone cares about the current behavior of ptrace I think this is worth fixing.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 55 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 52 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 37 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Quoted 7 lines
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have
CAP_SYS_PTRACE.If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
I would suggest leaving it alone. Changing it could break enough things that a sysctl would be needed, and I just don't see how this is a significant issue, especially since it's been insecure forever. Anyone who cares should do the stub executable trick:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
/sbin/foo: 04755, literally just doesexecve("/sbin/foo-helper");
/sbin/foo-helper: 0500.I can't imagine what non-malware would depend on being able to circumvent file permissions and ptrace a read-only executable. Is there something you are thinking of?
$ strace sudo foobar
or
$ strace auditctl
I find the current behavior somewhat odd, but I've taken advantage of it on a semi-regular basis.
That being said, the "May the user_ns root read the executable?" test in your patch is not strictly correct. Do we keep a struct cred around for the ns root?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
cover Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.
There are other issues in this area as well, but these are the pieces that I can see clearly, and have tested fixes for.
Andy as to your criticism about using strace sudo I can't possibly see how that is effective or useful. Under strace sudo won't run as root today, and will immediately exit because it is not root. Furthermore the only place I can find non-readable executables is people hardening suid root executables so they are more difficult to trace. So I definitely think we should honor the unix permissions and people's expressed wishes.
Eric W. Biederman (3):
ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
exec: Ensure mm->user_ns contains the execed files
fs/exec.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/capability.h | 2 ++ include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
PATCH 1/3 ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
When the flag PT_PTRACE_CAP was added the PTRACE_TRACEME path was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.
Further PT_PTRACE_CAP does not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.
I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set PT_PTRACE_CAP even when running strace as root with a full set of caps.
This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
fs/exec.c +1 -1
@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ())) bprm->unsafe |=LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP ;else bprm->unsafe |=LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE ;
include/linux/capability.h +1 -0
@@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ static inline bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIUSER */ extern bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid (const struct inode *inode,int cap);extern bool file_ns_capable (const struct file *file,struct user_namespace *ns,int cap); +extern bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns);/* audit system wants to get cap info from files as well */ extern int get_vfs_caps_from_disk (const struct dentry *dentry,struct cpu_vfs_cap_data *cpu_caps);
include/linux/ptrace.h +0 -1
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@#define PT_SEIZED 0x00010000/* SEIZE used, enable new behavior */ #define PT_PTRACED 0x00000001#define PT_DTRACE 0x00000002/* delayed trace (used on m68k, i386) */ -#define PT_PTRACE_CAP 0x00000004/* ptracer can follow suid-exec */ #define PT_OPT_FLAG_SHIFT 3/* PT_TRACE_* event enable flags */
include/linux/sched.h +1 -0
@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */ const struct cred __rcu *real_cred;/* objective and real subjective task * credentials (COW) */ const struct cred __rcu *cred;/* effective (overridable) subjective task
kernel/capability.c +20 -0
@@ -473,3 +473,23 @@ bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(const struct inode *inode, int cap)kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); }EXPORT_SYMBOL (capable_wrt_inode_uidgid); + +/** +* ptracer_capable - Determine if the ptracer holds CAP_SYS_PTRACE in the namespace +* @tsk: The task that may be ptraced +* @ns: The user namespace to search for CAP_SYS_PTRACE in +* +* Return true if the task that is ptracing the current task had CAP_SYS_PTRACE +* in the specified user namespace. +*/ +bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns) +{ +int ret =0 ;/* An absent tracer adds no restrictions */ +const struct cred *cred; +rcu_read_lock (); + cred =rcu_dereference (tsk->ptracer_cred); +if (cred) + ret =security_capable_noaudit (cred, ns,CAP_SYS_PTRACE ); +rcu_read_unlock (); +return (ret ==0 ); +}
kernel/ptrace.c +7 -5
@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ void __ptrace_link(struct task_struct *child, struct task_struct *new_parent)BUG_ON (!list_empty (&child->ptrace_entry));list_add (&child->ptrace_entry, &new_parent->ptraced); child->parent = new_parent; +rcu_read_lock (); + child->ptracer_cred =get_cred (__task_cred (new_parent)); +rcu_read_unlock (); }/**
@@ -71,12 +74,16 @@ void __ptrace_link(struct task_struct *child, struct task_struct *new_parent)*/ void __ptrace_unlink (struct task_struct *child) { +const struct cred *old_cred;BUG_ON (!child->ptrace);clear_tsk_thread_flag (child,TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE ); child->parent = child->real_parent;list_del_init (&child->ptrace_entry); + old_cred = child->ptracer_cred; + child->ptracer_cred =NULL ; +put_cred (old_cred);spin_lock (&child->sighand->siglock); child->ptrace =0 ;
@@ -326,11 +333,6 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task, long request,task_lock (task); retval =__ptrace_may_access (task,PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS ); -if (!retval) { -struct mm_struct *mm = task->mm; -if (mm &&ns_capable (mm->user_ns,CAP_SYS_PTRACE )) - flags |=PT_PTRACE_CAP ; - }task_unlock (task);if (retval) goto unlock_creds;
Signature · 7 lines
2.10.1 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 29 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>---
[...]include/linux/sched.h +0
-0
include/linux/sched.h struct task_struct { · line 1659
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/sched.h +1
-0@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */
Typo: credentials.
-Kees
Signature · 8 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 33 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 31 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>---
[...]include/linux/sched.h +0
-0@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/sched.h struct task_struct { · line 1659
Quoted 2 lines
include/linux/sched.h +1
-0/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */ Typo: credentials.
Thank you, fixed.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAGXu5jKbVkCGVSoxNQ=pTCBX1Boe3rPR1P56P-kR9AHWYHBs2w-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 33 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 31 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")---
[...]include/linux/sched.h +0
-0@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/sched.h struct task_struct { · line 1659
Quoted 2 lines
include/linux/sched.h +1
-0/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */ Typo: credentials.
Thank you, fixed.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87oa1eavfx.fsf_-_-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 29 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")---
[...]include/linux/sched.h +0
-0
include/linux/sched.h struct task_struct { · line 1659
Quoted 4 lines
include/linux/sched.h +1
-0@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */
Typo: credentials.
-Kees
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 36 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0
fs/exec.c static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) · line 1404
Quoted 5 lines
fs/exec.c +1
-1@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ()))
IIRC PT_PTRACE_CAP was added to prevent TOCTOU races. What prevents that type of race now? For that matter, what guarantees that we've already switched to new creds here and will continue to do so in the future?
--Andy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanQuoted 36 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0
fs/exec.c static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) · line 1404
Quoted 5 lines
fs/exec.c +1
-1@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ()))
IIRC PT_PTRACE_CAP was added to prevent TOCTOU races. What prevents that type of race now? For that matter, what guarantees that we've already switched to new creds here and will continue to do so in the future?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 40 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 38 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) · line 1404
Quoted 3 lines
fs/exec.c +1
-1if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ()))IIRC
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added to prevent TOCTOU races. What prevents that type of race now? For that matter, what guarantees that we've already switched to new creds here and will continue to do so in the future?
Because instead of capturing a single bit we now capture tracers
entire credentials in tsk->ptracer_cred. As such tsk->ptracer_cred
never changes except when ptracing begins or ends, and we remain safe for TOCTOU races.
We do hold cred_guard_mutex here so that guarantees we get a new ptracer. So the worst that can happen here is our tracer detaches and ptracer_capable will uncondintionally return true.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrUSnPfzpabQMNuyOu09j9QDzRDeoQVF_U51=ow3bP5pkw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/3] ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
Quoted 40 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 38 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the flag
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added thePTRACE_TRACEMEpath was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.Further
PT_PTRACE_CAPdoes not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set
PT_PTRACE_CAPeven when running strace as root with a full set of caps.This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
Fixes 4214e42f96d4 ("v2.4.9.11 -> v2.4.9.12")--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) · line 1404
Quoted 3 lines
fs/exec.c +1
-1if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ()))IIRC
PT_PTRACE_CAPwas added to prevent TOCTOU races. What prevents that type of race now? For that matter, what guarantees that we've already switched to new creds here and will continue to do so in the future?
Because instead of capturing a single bit we now capture tracers
entire credentials in tsk->ptracer_cred. As such tsk->ptracer_cred
never changes except when ptracing begins or ends, and we remain safe for TOCTOU races.
We do hold cred_guard_mutex here so that guarantees we get a new ptracer. So the worst that can happen here is our tracer detaches and ptracer_capable will uncondintionally return true.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87twb6avk8.fsf_-_-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
PATCH 1/3 ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
When the flag PT_PTRACE_CAP was added the PTRACE_TRACEME path was overlooked. This can result in incorrect behavior when an application like strace traces an exec of a setuid executable.
Further PT_PTRACE_CAP does not have enough information for making good security decisions as it does not report which user namespace the capability is in. This has already allowed one mistake through insufficient granulariy.
I found this issue when I was testing another corner case of exec and discovered that I could not get strace to set PT_PTRACE_CAP even when running strace as root with a full set of caps.
This change fixes the above issue with strace allowing stracing as root a setuid executable without disabling setuid. More fundamentaly this change allows what is allowable at all times, by using the correct information in it's decision.
--- fs/exec.c | 2 +- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
fs/exec.c +1 -1
@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static void check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)unsigned n_fs;if (p->ptrace) { -if (p->ptrace &PT_PTRACE_CAP ) +if (ptracer_capable (p,current_user_ns ())) bprm->unsafe |=LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP ;else bprm->unsafe |=LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE ;
include/linux/capability.h +1 -0
@@ -242,6 +242,7 @@ static inline bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIUSER */ extern bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid (const struct inode *inode,int cap);extern bool file_ns_capable (const struct file *file,struct user_namespace *ns,int cap); +extern bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns);/* audit system wants to get cap info from files as well */ extern int get_vfs_caps_from_disk (const struct dentry *dentry,struct cpu_vfs_cap_data *cpu_caps);
include/linux/ptrace.h +0 -1
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@#define PT_SEIZED 0x00010000/* SEIZE used, enable new behavior */ #define PT_PTRACED 0x00000001#define PT_DTRACE 0x00000002/* delayed trace (used on m68k, i386) */ -#define PT_PTRACE_CAP 0x00000004/* ptracer can follow suid-exec */ #define PT_OPT_FLAG_SHIFT 3/* PT_TRACE_* event enable flags */
include/linux/sched.h +1 -0
@@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ struct task_struct {struct list_head cpu_timers[3 ];/* process credentials */ +const struct cred __rcu *ptracer_cred;/* Tracer's dredentials at attach */ const struct cred __rcu *real_cred;/* objective and real subjective task * credentials (COW) */ const struct cred __rcu *cred;/* effective (overridable) subjective task
kernel/capability.c +20 -0
@@ -473,3 +473,23 @@ bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(const struct inode *inode, int cap)kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); }EXPORT_SYMBOL (capable_wrt_inode_uidgid); + +/** +* ptracer_capable - Determine if the ptracer holds CAP_SYS_PTRACE in the namespace +* @tsk: The task that may be ptraced +* @ns: The user namespace to search for CAP_SYS_PTRACE in +* +* Return true if the task that is ptracing the current task had CAP_SYS_PTRACE +* in the specified user namespace. +*/ +bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns) +{ +int ret =0 ;/* An absent tracer adds no restrictions */ +const struct cred *cred; +rcu_read_lock (); + cred =rcu_dereference (tsk->ptracer_cred); +if (cred) + ret =security_capable_noaudit (cred, ns,CAP_SYS_PTRACE ); +rcu_read_unlock (); +return (ret ==0 ); +}
kernel/ptrace.c +7 -5
@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ void __ptrace_link(struct task_struct *child, struct task_struct *new_parent)BUG_ON (!list_empty (&child->ptrace_entry));list_add (&child->ptrace_entry, &new_parent->ptraced); child->parent = new_parent; +rcu_read_lock (); + child->ptracer_cred =get_cred (__task_cred (new_parent)); +rcu_read_unlock (); }/**
@@ -71,12 +74,16 @@ void __ptrace_link(struct task_struct *child, struct task_struct *new_parent)*/ void __ptrace_unlink (struct task_struct *child) { +const struct cred *old_cred;BUG_ON (!child->ptrace);clear_tsk_thread_flag (child,TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE ); child->parent = child->real_parent;list_del_init (&child->ptrace_entry); + old_cred = child->ptracer_cred; + child->ptracer_cred =NULL ; +put_cred (old_cred);spin_lock (&child->sighand->siglock); child->ptrace =0 ;
@@ -326,11 +333,6 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task, long request,task_lock (task); retval =__ptrace_may_access (task,PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS ); -if (!retval) { -struct mm_struct *mm = task->mm; -if (mm &&ns_capable (mm->user_ns,CAP_SYS_PTRACE )) - flags |=PT_PTRACE_CAP ; - }task_unlock (task);if (retval) goto unlock_creds;
Signature · 1 line
2.10.1
PATCH 2/3 exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
In reply to a message not in the archiveIt is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in ptrace_attach but if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.
Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
fs/exec.c +7 -1
@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +/* * Make sure we have a private signal table and that * we are unassociated from the previous thread group.
@@ -1301,7 +1306,6 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) !gid_eq(bprm->cred->gid, current_egid())) { current->pdeath_signal = 0; } else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }
@@ -1736,6 +1740,8 @@ static int do_execveat_common(int fd, struct filename *filename,if (retval <0 ) goto out; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); + retval =exec_binprm (bprm);if (retval <0 ) goto out;
Signature · 1 line
2.10.1
PATCH 3/3 exec: Ensure mm->user_ns contains the execed files
In reply to a message not in the archiveWhen the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptrace from revealing the contents of an unreadable executable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by ensuring that the executed file or files are in mm->user_ns, by adjusting mm->user_ns.
Use the new function privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid to see if the executable is a member of the user namespace, and as such if having CAP_SYS_PTRACE in the user namespace should allow tracing the executable. If not update mm->user_ns to the parent user namespace until an appropriate parent is found.
--- fs/exec.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
fs/exec.c +15 -1
@@ -1275,8 +1275,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *old, *user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* Ensure mm->user_ns contains the executable */ + user_ns = old = bprm->mm->user_ns; +while ((user_ns != &init_user_ns) && + !privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (user_ns, inode)) + user_ns = user_ns->parent; + +if (old != user_ns) { + bprm->mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns); +put_user_ns (old); + } + } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump);
include/linux/capability.h +1 -0
@@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ static inline bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap) return true; }#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIUSER */ +extern bool privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (struct user_namespace *ns,const struct inode *inode);extern bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid (const struct inode *inode,int cap);extern bool file_ns_capable (const struct file *file,struct user_namespace *ns,int cap);extern bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns);
kernel/capability.c +14 -2
@@ -457,6 +457,19 @@ bool file_ns_capable(const struct file *file, struct user_namespace *ns,EXPORT_SYMBOL (file_ns_capable);/** +* privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid - Do capabilities in the namespace work over the inode? +* @ns: The user namespace in question +* @inode: The inode in question +* +* Return true if the inode uid and gid are within the namespace. +*/ +bool privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (struct user_namespace *ns,const struct inode *inode) +{ +return kuid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_uid) && +kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); +} + +/** * capable_wrt_inode_uidgid - Check nsown_capable and uid and gid mapped * @inode: The inode in question * @cap: The capability in question
@@ -469,8 +482,7 @@ bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(const struct inode *inode, int cap) {struct user_namespace *ns =current_user_ns (); -return ns_capable (ns, cap) &&kuid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_uid) && -kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); +return ns_capable (ns, cap) &&privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (ns, inode); }EXPORT_SYMBOL (capable_wrt_inode_uidgid);
Signature · 1 line
2.10.1
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to a message not in the archiveHi Eric,
Quoted 4 lines · Eric W. Biederman
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.
I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
Thanks,
Willy
PATCH 2/3 exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanIt is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in ptrace_attach but if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.
Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
fs/exec.c +7 -1
@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +/* * Make sure we have a private signal table and that * we are unassociated from the previous thread group.
@@ -1301,7 +1306,6 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) !gid_eq(bprm->cred->gid, current_egid())) { current->pdeath_signal = 0; } else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }
@@ -1736,6 +1740,8 @@ static int do_execveat_common(int fd, struct filename *filename,if (retval <0 ) goto out; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); + retval =exec_binprm (bprm);if (retval <0 ) goto out;
Signature · 7 lines
2.10.1 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.
I'm really scared by this Eric. At least you want to make it a hardening option that can be disabled at run time, otherwise it can easily break a lot of userspace :
admin@aloha:~$ ll /bin/bash /bin/coreutils /bin/ls /usr/bin/telnet -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 549272 Oct 28 16:25 /bin/bash -rwx--x--x 1 root adm 765624 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/coreutils lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/ls -> coreutils -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 70344 Oct 28 16:34 /usr/bin/telnet
And I've not invented it, I've being taught to do this more than 20 years ago and been doing this since on any slightly hardened server just because in pratice it's efficient at stopping quite a bunch of rootkits which require to copy and modify your executables. Sure they could get the contents using ptrace, but using cp is much more common than ptrace in scripts and that works. This has prooven quite efficient in field at stopping some rootkits several times over the last two decades and I know I'm not the only one to do it. In fact I *never* install an executable with read permissions for users if there's no need for random users to copy it. Does it mean that nobody should be able to see why their favorite utility doesn't work anymore ? Not in my opinion, at least not by default.
So here I fear that we'll break strace at many places where strace precisely matters to debug things.
However I'd love to have this feature controlled by a sysctl (to enforce it by default where possible).
Thanks,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 31 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.I'm really scared by this Eric. At least you want to make it a hardening option that can be disabled at run time, otherwise it can easily break a lot of userspace :
admin@aloha:~$ ll /bin/bash /bin/coreutils /bin/ls /usr/bin/telnet(quoted diff) +0
-2-r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 549272 Oct 28 16:25 /bin/bash -rwx--x--x 1 root adm 765624 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/coreutilslrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 28 16:27
/bin/ls-> coreutils -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 70344 Oct 28 16:34/usr/bin/telnetAnd I've not invented it, I've being taught to do this more than 20 years ago and been doing this since on any slightly hardened server just because in pratice it's efficient at stopping quite a bunch of rootkits which require to copy and modify your executables. Sure they could get the contents using ptrace, but using cp is much more common than ptrace in scripts and that works. This has prooven quite efficient in field at stopping some rootkits several times over the last two decades and I know I'm not the only one to do it. In fact I *never* install an executable with read permissions for users if there's no need for random users to copy it. Does it mean that nobody should be able to see why their favorite utility doesn't work anymore ? Not in my opinion, at least not by default.
Quoted 5 lines
So here I fear that we'll break strace at many places where strace precisely matters to debug things.
However I'd love to have this feature controlled by a sysctl (to enforce it by default where possible).
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
-Kees
Signature · 8 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 5 lines · Kees Cook
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
Also that makes me realize that by far the largest use case of ptrace is strace and that strace needs very little capabilities. I guess that most users would be fine with having only pointers and not contents for addresses or read/write of data, as they have on some other OSes, when the process is not readable. But in my opinion when a process is executable we should be able to trace its execution (even without memory read access).
Willy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 7 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 5 lines · Kees Cook
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
Quoted 7 lines
Also that makes me realize that by far the largest use case of ptrace is strace and that strace needs very little capabilities. I guess that most users would be fine with having only pointers and not contents for addresses or read/write of data, as they have on some other OSes, when the process is not readable. But in my opinion when a process is executable we should be able to trace its execution (even without memory read access).
Given all of this I will respin this series with a replacement patch that adds a permission check ion the path where ptrace calls access_process_vm.
I avoided it because the patch is a bit larger and with full ptrace control is much better at leaking information. Even if you can't read the data. But ptrace works even if it won't give you the memory based arguments to system calls anymore.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
PATCH 2/3 ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in ptrace_attach but if ptrace is already attached before exec there is no enforcement for read-only executables.
As the only way to read such an mm is through access_process_vm spin a variant called ptrace_access_vm that will fail if the target process is not being ptraced by the current process, or the current process did not have sufficient privileges when ptracing began to read the target processes mm.
In the ptrace implementations replace access_process_vm by ptrace_access_vm. There remain several ptrace sites that still use access_process_vm as they are reading the target executables instructions (for kernel consumption) or register stacks. As such it does not appear necessary to add a permission check to those calls.
This bug has always existed in Linux.
--- arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c | 4 ++-- arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c | 4 ++-- include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++ include/linux/ptrace.h | 3 +++ kernel/ptrace.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ mm/memory.c | 2 +- mm/nommu.c | 2 +- 11 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,/* When I and D space are separate, these will need to be fixed. */ case PTRACE_PEEKTEXT :/* read word at location addr. */ case PTRACE_PEEKDATA : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); ret = -EIO ;if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c +2 -2
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,switch (bfin_mem_access_type (addr, to_copy)) {case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE :case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE_ONLY : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp, to_copy,0 );if (copied)break ;
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,switch (bfin_mem_access_type (addr, to_copy)) {case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE :case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE_ONLY : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &data, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &data, to_copy,1 );break ;case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_DMA :
arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,/* The trampoline page is globally mapped, no page table to traverse.*/ tmp = *(unsigned long *)addr; }else { - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ arch_ptrace (struct task_struct *child, long request,case PTRACE_PEEKTEXT :case PTRACE_PEEKDATA :/* read word at location addr */ -if (access_process_vm (child, addr, &data,sizeof (data),0 ) +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &data,sizeof (data),0 ) !=sizeof (data))return -EIO ;/* ensure return value is not mistaken for error code */
arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c +2 -2
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *) (unsigned long ) addr) !=0 )break ; - copied =access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *) (unsigned long ) addr) !=0 )break ; ret =0 ; -if (access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &data, +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &data,sizeof (data),1 ) ==sizeof (data))break ; ret = -EIO ;
arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c +2 -2
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *)addr) !=0 )break ; - copied =access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *)addr) !=0 )break ; ret =0 ; -if (access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),1 ) ==sizeof (tmp))break ; ret = -EIO ;
include/linux/mm.h +2 -0
@@ -1269,6 +1269,8 @@ static inline int fixup_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk,extern int access_process_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write);extern int access_remote_vm (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write); +extern int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write); long __get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
include/linux/ptrace.h +3 -0
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@#include <linux/pid_namespace.h> /* For task_active_pid_ns. */ #include <uapi/linux/ptrace.h> +extern int ptrace_access_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,unsigned long addr, +void *buf,int len,int write); +/* * Ptrace flags *
kernel/ptrace.c +35 -6
83 lines not on this page · raw message
mm/memory.c +1 -1
@@ -3868,7 +3868,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(generic_access_phys);* Access another process' address space as given in mm. If non-NULL, use the * given task for page fault accounting. */ -static int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write) {struct vm_area_struct *vma;
mm/nommu.c +1 -1
@@ -1816,7 +1816,7 @@ void filemap_map_pages(struct fault_env *fe, }EXPORT_SYMBOL (filemap_map_pages); -static int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write) {struct vm_area_struct *vma;
Signature · 7 lines
2.10.1 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if ptrace is already attached before exec there is no enforcement for read-only executables.
Given the corner cases being fixed here, it might make sense to add some simple tests to tools/testing/sefltests/ptrace/ to validate these changes and avoid future regressions.
Regardless, it'll be nice to have this fixed. :)
-Kees
Signature · 8 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87shqpzpok.fsf_-_-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if ptrace is already attached before exec there is no enforcement for read-only executables.
Given the corner cases being fixed here, it might make sense to add some simple tests to tools/testing/sefltests/ptrace/ to validate these changes and avoid future regressions.
Regardless, it'll be nice to have this fixed. :)
-Kees
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 874m3522sy.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
PATCH 2/3 ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in ptrace_attach but if ptrace is already attached before exec there is no enforcement for read-only executables.
As the only way to read such an mm is through access_process_vm spin a variant called ptrace_access_vm that will fail if the target process is not being ptraced by the current process, or the current process did not have sufficient privileges when ptracing began to read the target processes mm.
In the ptrace implementations replace access_process_vm by ptrace_access_vm. There remain several ptrace sites that still use access_process_vm as they are reading the target executables instructions (for kernel consumption) or register stacks. As such it does not appear necessary to add a permission check to those calls.
This bug has always existed in Linux.
--- arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++-- arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +- arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c | 4 ++-- arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c | 4 ++-- include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++ include/linux/ptrace.h | 3 +++ kernel/ptrace.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ mm/memory.c | 2 +- mm/nommu.c | 2 +- 11 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,/* When I and D space are separate, these will need to be fixed. */ case PTRACE_PEEKTEXT :/* read word at location addr. */ case PTRACE_PEEKDATA : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); ret = -EIO ;if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c +2 -2
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,switch (bfin_mem_access_type (addr, to_copy)) {case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE :case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE_ONLY : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp, to_copy,0 );if (copied)break ;
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,switch (bfin_mem_access_type (addr, to_copy)) {case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE :case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_CORE_ONLY : - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &data, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &data, to_copy,1 );break ;case BFIN_MEM_ACCESS_DMA :
arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,/* The trampoline page is globally mapped, no page table to traverse.*/ tmp = *(unsigned long *)addr; }else { - copied =access_process_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 ); + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c +1 -1
@@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ arch_ptrace (struct task_struct *child, long request,case PTRACE_PEEKTEXT :case PTRACE_PEEKDATA :/* read word at location addr */ -if (access_process_vm (child, addr, &data,sizeof (data),0 ) +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, addr, &data,sizeof (data),0 ) !=sizeof (data))return -EIO ;/* ensure return value is not mistaken for error code */
arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c +2 -2
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *) (unsigned long ) addr) !=0 )break ; - copied =access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *) (unsigned long ) addr) !=0 )break ; ret =0 ; -if (access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &data, +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &data,sizeof (data),1 ) ==sizeof (data))break ; ret = -EIO ;
arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c +2 -2
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *)addr) !=0 )break ; - copied =access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, + copied =ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),0 );if (copied !=sizeof (tmp))break ;
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,if (get_user (addrOthers, (u32 __user *__user *)addr) !=0 )break ; ret =0 ; -if (access_process_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp, +if (ptrace_access_vm (child, (u64 )addrOthers, &tmp,sizeof (tmp),1 ) ==sizeof (tmp))break ; ret = -EIO ;
include/linux/mm.h +2 -0
@@ -1269,6 +1269,8 @@ static inline int fixup_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk,extern int access_process_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write);extern int access_remote_vm (struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write); +extern int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write); long __get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
include/linux/ptrace.h +3 -0
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@#include <linux/pid_namespace.h> /* For task_active_pid_ns. */ #include <uapi/linux/ptrace.h> +extern int ptrace_access_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,unsigned long addr, +void *buf,int len,int write); +/* * Ptrace flags *
kernel/ptrace.c +35 -6
83 lines not on this page · raw message
mm/memory.c +1 -1
@@ -3868,7 +3868,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(generic_access_phys);* Access another process' address space as given in mm. If non-NULL, use the * given task for page fault accounting. */ -static int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write) {struct vm_area_struct *vma;
mm/nommu.c +1 -1
@@ -1816,7 +1816,7 @@ void filemap_map_pages(struct fault_env *fe, }EXPORT_SYMBOL (filemap_map_pages); -static int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm, +int __access_remote_vm (struct task_struct *tsk,struct mm_struct *mm,unsigned long addr,void *buf,int len,int write) {struct vm_area_struct *vma;
Signature · 1 line
2.10.1
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20161117213258.GA10839-K+wRfnb2/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 7 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 5 lines · Kees Cook
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
Quoted 7 lines
Also that makes me realize that by far the largest use case of ptrace is strace and that strace needs very little capabilities. I guess that most users would be fine with having only pointers and not contents for addresses or read/write of data, as they have on some other OSes, when the process is not readable. But in my opinion when a process is executable we should be able to trace its execution (even without memory read access).
Given all of this I will respin this series with a replacement patch that adds a permission check ion the path where ptrace calls access_process_vm.
I avoided it because the patch is a bit larger and with full ptrace control is much better at leaking information. Even if you can't read the data. But ptrace works even if it won't give you the memory based arguments to system calls anymore.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CAGXu5jJc6TmzdVp+4OMDAt5Kd68hHbNBXaRPD8X0+m558hx3qw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 5 lines · Kees Cook
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
Also that makes me realize that by far the largest use case of ptrace is strace and that strace needs very little capabilities. I guess that most users would be fine with having only pointers and not contents for addresses or read/write of data, as they have on some other OSes, when the process is not readable. But in my opinion when a process is executable we should be able to trace its execution (even without memory read access).
Willy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
In reply to Kees CookQuoted 35 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 34 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.I'm really scared by this Eric. At least you want to make it a hardening option that can be disabled at run time, otherwise it can easily break a lot of userspace :
admin@aloha:~$ ll /bin/bash /bin/coreutils /bin/ls /usr/bin/telnet(quoted diff) +0
-2-r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 549272 Oct 28 16:25 /bin/bash -rwx--x--x 1 root adm 765624 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/coreutilslrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 28 16:27
/bin/ls-> coreutils -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 70344 Oct 28 16:34/usr/bin/telnetAnd I've not invented it, I've being taught to do this more than 20 years ago and been doing this since on any slightly hardened server just because in pratice it's efficient at stopping quite a bunch of rootkits which require to copy and modify your executables. Sure they could get the contents using ptrace, but using cp is much more common than ptrace in scripts and that works. This has prooven quite efficient in field at stopping some rootkits several times over the last two decades and I know I'm not the only one to do it. In fact I *never* install an executable with read permissions for users if there's no need for random users to copy it. Does it mean that nobody should be able to see why their favorite utility doesn't work anymore ? Not in my opinion, at least not by default.
So here I fear that we'll break strace at many places where strace precisely matters to debug things.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
However I'd love to have this feature controlled by a sysctl (to enforce it by default where possible).
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
That won't be a problem because exec-only memory is going to need to allow ptrace to read it anyway.
--Andy
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20161117204707.GB10421-K+wRfnb2/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 31 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.I'm really scared by this Eric. At least you want to make it a hardening option that can be disabled at run time, otherwise it can easily break a lot of userspace :
admin@aloha:~$ ll /bin/bash /bin/coreutils /bin/ls /usr/bin/telnet(quoted diff) +0
-2-r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 549272 Oct 28 16:25 /bin/bash -rwx--x--x 1 root adm 765624 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/coreutilslrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 28 16:27
/bin/ls-> coreutils -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 70344 Oct 28 16:34/usr/bin/telnetAnd I've not invented it, I've being taught to do this more than 20 years ago and been doing this since on any slightly hardened server just because in pratice it's efficient at stopping quite a bunch of rootkits which require to copy and modify your executables. Sure they could get the contents using ptrace, but using cp is much more common than ptrace in scripts and that works. This has prooven quite efficient in field at stopping some rootkits several times over the last two decades and I know I'm not the only one to do it. In fact I *never* install an executable with read permissions for users if there's no need for random users to copy it. Does it mean that nobody should be able to see why their favorite utility doesn't work anymore ? Not in my opinion, at least not by default.
Quoted 5 lines
So here I fear that we'll break strace at many places where strace precisely matters to debug things.
However I'd love to have this feature controlled by a sysctl (to enforce it by default where possible).
I'm not opposed to a sysctl for this. Regardless, I think we need to embrace this idea now, though, since we'll soon end up with architectures that enforce executable-only memory, in which case ptrace will again fail. Almost better to get started here and then not have more surprises later.
-Kees
Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook Nexus Security
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87inrmavax.fsf_-_-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 6 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.
I'm really scared by this Eric. At least you want to make it a hardening option that can be disabled at run time, otherwise it can easily break a lot of userspace :
admin@aloha:~$ ll /bin/bash /bin/coreutils /bin/ls /usr/bin/telnet -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 549272 Oct 28 16:25 /bin/bash -rwx--x--x 1 root adm 765624 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/coreutils lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Oct 28 16:27 /bin/ls -> coreutils -r-xr-x--x 1 root adm 70344 Oct 28 16:34 /usr/bin/telnet
And I've not invented it, I've being taught to do this more than 20 years ago and been doing this since on any slightly hardened server just because in pratice it's efficient at stopping quite a bunch of rootkits which require to copy and modify your executables. Sure they could get the contents using ptrace, but using cp is much more common than ptrace in scripts and that works. This has prooven quite efficient in field at stopping some rootkits several times over the last two decades and I know I'm not the only one to do it. In fact I *never* install an executable with read permissions for users if there's no need for random users to copy it. Does it mean that nobody should be able to see why their favorite utility doesn't work anymore ? Not in my opinion, at least not by default.
So here I fear that we'll break strace at many places where strace precisely matters to debug things.
However I'd love to have this feature controlled by a sysctl (to enforce it by default where possible).
Thanks,
Willy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0
fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +
At the very least, I think that BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP needs to check capable_wrt_inode_uidgid too. Otherwise we risk breaking:
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.out
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanQuoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0
fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +
At the very least, I think that BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP needs to check capable_wrt_inode_uidgid too. Otherwise we risk breaking:
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.out
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.out
It is an invariant that if you have caps in mm->user_ns you will also be capable_write_inode_uidgid of all files that a process exec's.
My third patch winds up changing mm->user_ns to maintain this invariant.
It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 39 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.outIt is an invariant that if you have caps in
mm->user_nsyou will also becapable_write_inode_uidgidof all files that a process exec's.
I meant to check whether you *are* the owner, too.
Quoted 6 lines
My third patch winds up changing
mm->user_nsto maintain this invariant.It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.
I think that's better.
Quoted 4 lines
Eric
Signature · 8 lines
Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 41 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 39 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>Signed-off-by "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.outIt is an invariant that if you have caps in
mm->user_nsyou will also becapable_write_inode_uidgidof all files that a process exec's.I meant to check whether you *are* the owner, too.
I don't follow. BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP is only set if the caller of exec does not have inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ).
Which in your example would have guaranteed thatBINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP would have be unset.
The ptracer_capable thing is only asking in this instance if we can ignore the nondumpable status because we have CAP_SYS_PTRACE over a user namespace that includes all of the files that would_dump was called on (mm->user_ns).
ptrace_access_vm in the replacement patch has essentially the same permission check. It is just at PTRACE_PEEKTEXT, PTRACE_PEEKDATA, PTRACE_POKETEXT, or PTRACE_POKEDATA time.
So I am curious if you are seeing something that is worth fixing.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
My third patch winds up changing
mm->user_nsto maintain this invariant.It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.I think that's better.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrX=61Sk9qim+Psjn83gohuizEsrpUC9gF-vwQTtR4GuJw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 41 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 39 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.outIt is an invariant that if you have caps in
mm->user_nsyou will also becapable_write_inode_uidgidof all files that a process exec's.I meant to check whether you *are* the owner, too.
I don't follow. BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP is only set if the caller of exec does not have inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ).
Which in your example would have guaranteed thatBINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP would have be unset.
The ptracer_capable thing is only asking in this instance if we can ignore the nondumpable status because we have CAP_SYS_PTRACE over a user namespace that includes all of the files that would_dump was called on (mm->user_ns).
ptrace_access_vm in the replacement patch has essentially the same permission check. It is just at PTRACE_PEEKTEXT, PTRACE_PEEKDATA, PTRACE_POKETEXT, or PTRACE_POKEDATA time.
So I am curious if you are seeing something that is worth fixing.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
My third patch winds up changing
mm->user_nsto maintain this invariant.It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.I think that's better.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87mvgxwtjv.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 39 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.outIt is an invariant that if you have caps in
mm->user_nsyou will also becapable_write_inode_uidgidof all files that a process exec's.
I meant to check whether you *are* the owner, too.
Quoted 6 lines
My third patch winds up changing
mm->user_nsto maintain this invariant.It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.
I think that's better.
Quoted 4 lines
Eric
Signature · 2 lines
Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrUvKpRCXRE+K512E_q9-o8Gzgb+3XsAzSo+ZFdgqeX-eQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/3] exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
Quoted 37 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 23 lines · Eric W. Biederman
It is the reasonable expectation that if an executable file is not readable there will be no way for a user without special privileges to read the file. This is enforced in
ptrace_attachbut if we are already attached there is no enforcement if a readonly executable is exec'd.Therefore do the simple thing and if there is a non-dumpable executable that we are tracing without privilege fail to exec it.
Fixes v1.0Reported-by Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>--- fs/exec.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/exec.c +0
-0fs/exec.c int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) · line 1237
Quoted 8 lines
fs/exec.c +5
-0@@ -1230,6 +1230,11 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {int retval; +/* Fail if the tracer can't read the executable */ +if ((bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ) && + !ptracer_capable (current, bprm->mm->user_ns)) +return -EPERM ; +At the very least, I think that
BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMPneeds to checkcapable_wrt_inode_uidgidtoo. Otherwise we risk breaking:
Quoted 3 lines
$ gcc whatever.c $ chmod 400 a.out $ strace a.out
It is an invariant that if you have caps in mm->user_ns you will also be capable_write_inode_uidgid of all files that a process exec's.
My third patch winds up changing mm->user_ns to maintain this invariant.
It is also true that Willy convinced me while this check is trivial it will break historic uses so I have replaced this patch with:
"ptrace: Don't allow accessing an undumpable mm.
Eric
PATCH 3/3 exec: Ensure mm->user_ns contains the execed files
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanWhen the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptrace from revealing the contents of an unreadable executable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by ensuring that the executed file or files are in mm->user_ns, by adjusting mm->user_ns.
Use the new function privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid to see if the executable is a member of the user namespace, and as such if having CAP_SYS_PTRACE in the user namespace should allow tracing the executable. If not update mm->user_ns to the parent user namespace until an appropriate parent is found.
--- fs/exec.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- include/linux/capability.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
fs/exec.c +15 -1
@@ -1275,8 +1275,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *old, *user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* Ensure mm->user_ns contains the executable */ + user_ns = old = bprm->mm->user_ns; +while ((user_ns != &init_user_ns) && + !privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (user_ns, inode)) + user_ns = user_ns->parent; + +if (old != user_ns) { + bprm->mm->user_ns =get_user_ns (user_ns); +put_user_ns (old); + } + } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump);
include/linux/capability.h +1 -0
@@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ static inline bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap) return true; }#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIUSER */ +extern bool privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (struct user_namespace *ns,const struct inode *inode);extern bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid (const struct inode *inode,int cap);extern bool file_ns_capable (const struct file *file,struct user_namespace *ns,int cap);extern bool ptracer_capable (struct task_struct *tsk,struct user_namespace *ns);
kernel/capability.c +14 -2
@@ -457,6 +457,19 @@ bool file_ns_capable(const struct file *file, struct user_namespace *ns,EXPORT_SYMBOL (file_ns_capable);/** +* privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid - Do capabilities in the namespace work over the inode? +* @ns: The user namespace in question +* @inode: The inode in question +* +* Return true if the inode uid and gid are within the namespace. +*/ +bool privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (struct user_namespace *ns,const struct inode *inode) +{ +return kuid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_uid) && +kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); +} + +/** * capable_wrt_inode_uidgid - Check nsown_capable and uid and gid mapped * @inode: The inode in question * @cap: The capability in question
@@ -469,8 +482,7 @@ bool capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(const struct inode *inode, int cap) {struct user_namespace *ns =current_user_ns (); -return ns_capable (ns, cap) &&kuid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_uid) && -kgid_has_mapping (ns, inode->i_gid); +return ns_capable (ns, cap) &&privileged_wrt_inode_uidgid (ns, inode); }EXPORT_SYMBOL (capable_wrt_inode_uidgid);
Signature · 7 lines
2.10.1 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanHi Eric,
Quoted 4 lines · Eric W. Biederman
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.
I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
Thanks,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the user_ns changes since there's no such user_ns in mm_struct there.
I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {...}) = 0
open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {...}) = 0
uname({...}) = 0
fstat(1, {...}) = 0
ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0
open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0
fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0
ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0
connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
Thanks,
Willy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 72 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the
user_nschanges since there's no suchuser_nsinmm_structthere.I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 uname({...}) = 0 fstat(1, {...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0 open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0 fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0 connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0
Quoted 2 lines
So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
I also tested with gdb and it behaves as desired :
admin@vm:~$ sleep 100000 & [1] 1615 admin@vm:~$ /tmp/gdb-x86_64 -q -p 1615 Attaching to process 1615 ptrace: Operation not permitted. (gdb) quit
admin@vm:~$ sudo cp /bin/sleep /var/tmp/ admin@vm:~$ sudo chmod 755 /var/tmp/sleep admin@vm:~$ /tmp/sleep 100000 & [1] 1620 admin@vm:~$ /tmp/gdb-x86_64 -q -p 1620 Attaching to process 1620 Reading symbols from /var/tmp/sleep...(no debugging symbols found)...done. (...) 0x00007f6723d561b0 in nanosleep () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (gdb) quit
Willy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20161119092804.GA13553-K+wRfnb2/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 72 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the
user_nschanges since there's no suchuser_nsinmm_structthere.I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 uname({...}) = 0 fstat(1, {...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0 open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0 fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0 connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0
Quoted 2 lines
So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
I also tested with gdb and it behaves as desired :
admin@vm:~$ sleep 100000 & [1] 1615 admin@vm:~$ /tmp/gdb-x86_64 -q -p 1615 Attaching to process 1615 ptrace: Operation not permitted. (gdb) quit
admin@vm:~$ sudo cp /bin/sleep /var/tmp/ admin@vm:~$ sudo chmod 755 /var/tmp/sleep admin@vm:~$ /tmp/sleep 100000 & [1] 1620 admin@vm:~$ /tmp/gdb-x86_64 -q -p 1620 Attaching to process 1620 Reading symbols from /var/tmp/sleep...(no debugging symbols found)...done. (...) 0x00007f6723d561b0 in nanosleep () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (gdb) quit
Willy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 72 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the
user_nschanges since there's no suchuser_nsinmm_structthere.I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 uname({...}) = 0 fstat(1, {...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0 open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0 fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0 connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0
Quoted 2 lines
So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
Thanks for testing, and thanks for you acceptance even if I didn't make it easy for you.
Eric
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to Willy TarreauQuoted 72 lines · Willy Tarreau
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the
user_nschanges since there's no suchuser_nsinmm_structthere.I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {...}) = 0 uname({...}) = 0 fstat(1, {...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0 open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0 fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0 connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22 socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0
Quoted 2 lines
So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
Thanks for testing, and thanks for you acceptance even if I didn't make it easy for you.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20161119071700.GA13347-K+wRfnb2/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
OK I finally managed to get it to work on top of 4.8.9 (required less changes than master). I also had to drop the user_ns changes since there's no such user_ns in mm_struct there.
I could run a test on it, that looks reasonable :
FS:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7f3f9a1663e3, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open(0x7ffd01bbeeb0, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {...}) = 0
open(0x7ffd01bbee80, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {...}) = 0
uname({...}) = 0
fstat(1, {...}) = 0
ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0x7ffd01bbf400) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=fstat,uname,ioctl,open uname
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/tls/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/tls/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/x86_64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib64/libpthread.so.0", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=101312, ...}) = 0
open("/lib64/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0555, st_size=1479016, ...}) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="vm", ...}) = 0
fstat(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(4, 64), ...}) = 0
ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0Network:
admin@vm:~$ strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {...}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, 0x7ffd2c26bdbc, 4) = 0
connect(3, {...}, 16) = 0admin@vm:~$ sudo strace -e trace=socket,setsockopt,connect /tmp/nc 198.18.3 22
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_FILE, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK, 0) = 3
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path="/var/run/nscd/socket"}, 110) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(22), sin_addr=inet_addr("198.18.0.3")}, 16) = 0So in short now we can at least see what syscall fails eventhough we can't know why. I think it can be an acceptable trade-off.
Thanks,
Willy
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
It is against my for-next branch, and there is one patch in there that is significant.
The entire patchset should be at:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git for-next
Eric
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
In reply to Willy TarreauQuoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
It is against my for-next branch, and there is one patch in there that is significant.
The entire patchset should be at:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git for-next
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 15 lines · [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
Quoted 5 lines
It is against my for-next branch, and there is one patch in there that is significant.
The entire patchset should be at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.gitfor-next
Grr. I typed too fast, the branch above is the base:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git for-testing
should be the entire thing.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87d1hrjp23.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 0/3] Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
Quoted 15 lines · ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
Quoted 4 lines · Willy Tarreau
Hi Eric,
Quoted 1 line · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.I couldn't get your patch set to apply to any of the kernels I tried, I manually adjusted some parts but the second one has too many rejects. What kernel should I apply this to ? Or maybe some preliminary patches are needed ?
Quoted 5 lines
It is against my for-next branch, and there is one patch in there that is significant.
The entire patchset should be at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.gitfor-next
Grr. I typed too fast, the branch above is the base:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git for-testing
should be the entire thing.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrXA2EnE8X3HzetLG6zS8YSVjJQJrsSumTfvEcGq=r5vsw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
cover Fixing ptrace vs exec vs userns interactions
With everyone heading to Kernel Summit and Plumbers I put this set of
patches down temporarily. Now is the time to take it back up and to
make certain I am not missing something stupid in this set of patches.
There are other issues in this area as well, but these are the pieces that I can see clearly, and have tested fixes for.
Andy as to your criticism about using strace sudo I can't possibly see how that is effective or useful. Under strace sudo won't run as root today, and will immediately exit because it is not root. Furthermore the only place I can find non-readable executables is people hardening suid root executables so they are more difficult to trace. So I definitely think we should honor the unix permissions and people's expressed wishes.
Eric W. Biederman (3):
ptrace: Capture the ptracer's creds not PT_PTRACE_CAP
exec: Don't allow ptracing an exec of an unreadable file
exec: Ensure mm->user_ns contains the execed files
fs/exec.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/capability.h | 2 ++ include/linux/ptrace.h | 1 - include/linux/sched.h | 1 + kernel/capability.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- kernel/ptrace.c | 12 +++++++----- 6 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87pomwghda.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 55 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 52 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 37 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Quoted 7 lines
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have
CAP_SYS_PTRACE.If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
I would suggest leaving it alone. Changing it could break enough things that a sysctl would be needed, and I just don't see how this is a significant issue, especially since it's been insecure forever. Anyone who cares should do the stub executable trick:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
/sbin/foo: 04755, literally just doesexecve("/sbin/foo-helper");
/sbin/foo-helper: 0500.I can't imagine what non-malware would depend on being able to circumvent file permissions and ptrace a read-only executable. Is there something you are thinking of?
$ strace sudo foobar
or
$ strace auditctl
I find the current behavior somewhat odd, but I've taken advantage of it on a semi-regular basis.
That being said, the "May the user_ns root read the executable?" test in your patch is not strictly correct. Do we keep a struct cred around for the ns root?
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrUz2oU6OYwQ9K4M-SUg6FeDsd6Q1gf1w-cJRGg2PdmK8g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 47 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 37 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Quoted 7 lines
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have
CAP_SYS_PTRACE.If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
Quoted 8 lines
I would suggest leaving it alone. Changing it could break enough things that a sysctl would be needed, and I just don't see how this is a significant issue, especially since it's been insecure forever. Anyone who cares should do the stub executable trick:
/sbin/foo: 04755, literally just doesexecve("/sbin/foo-helper");
/sbin/foo-helper: 0500.
I can't imagine what non-malware would depend on being able to circumvent file permissions and ptrace a read-only executable. Is there something you are thinking of?
I know I saw someone depending on read-only executables being read-only earlier this week on the security list, and it could definitely act as part of a counter measure to make binaries harder to exploit.
So given that people actually expect no-read permissions to be honored on executables (with what seem valid and sensible use cases), that I can't see any valid reason not to honor no-read permissions, that it takes a really convoluted setup to bypass the current no-read permissions, and that I can't believe anyone cares about the current behavior of ptrace I think this is worth fixing.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrWSY1SRse5oqSwZ=goQ+ZALd2XcTP3SZ8ry49C8rNd98Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 27 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
Quoted 7 lines
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
Ah yes and this is only a problem if the ptracer does not have CAP_SYS_PTRACE.
If the tracer does not have sufficient permissions any opinions on failing the exec or kicking out the ptracer? I am leaning towards failing the exec as it is more obvious if someone cares. Dropping the ptracer could be a major mystery.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 21 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Quoted 4 lines
Nope.
check_unsafe_exec()sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags inbprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs andcap_bprm_set_creds()incommoncap.c.cap_bprm_set_creds()just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
I think you're right. I ought to be completely sure because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it closed an awkward-to-exploit root hole. But it's been a while. (Too bad my second (IIRC) kernel patch was more mundane and fixed the mute button on "new" Lenovo X60-era laptops and spend several years in limbo...)
--Andy
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87y41kjn6l.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 11 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 9 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Quoted 8 lines
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Nope. check_unsafe_exec() sets LSM_UNSAFE_* flags in bprm->unsafe, and then the flags are checked by the LSMs and cap_bprm_set_creds() in commoncap.c. cap_bprm_set_creds() just degrades the execution to a non-setuid-ish one, and e.g. ptracers stay attached.
Same thing happens if the fs struct is shared with another process or if NO_NEW_PRIVS is active.
(Actually, it's still a bit like normal setuid execution: IIRC AT_SECURE stays active, and the resulting process still won't be dumpable, so it's not possible for a *new* ptracer to attach afterwards. But this is just from memory, I'm not entirely sure.)
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 9 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 6 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever?
In this case it was a newish hole (2011) that the user namespace support added that I am closing. I am not super excited but I figure it is useful to make the kernel semantics at least as secure as they were before.
But if it was never secure in the first place...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
I thought it killed the setuid, not the ptrace.
(I ought to know because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it fixed an awkward-to-exploit race. But it's been a while.)
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
In reply to Eric W. BiedermanQuoted 9 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 6 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever?
In this case it was a newish hole (2011) that the user namespace support added that I am closing. I am not super excited but I figure it is useful to make the kernel semantics at least as secure as they were before.
But if it was never secure in the first place...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
I thought it killed the setuid, not the ptrace.
(I ought to know because I rewrote that code back in 2005 or so back when I thought kernel programming was only for the cool kids. It was probably my first kernel patch ever and it fixed an awkward-to-exploit race. But it's been a while.)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CALCETrU4SZYUEPrv4JkpUpA+0sZ=EirZRftRDp+a5hce5E7HgA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Re: [REVIEW][PATCH] exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
Quoted 8 lines · Andy Lutomirski
Quoted 3 lines · Eric W. Biederman
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Before getting too excited about this fix, isn't there a much bigger hole that's been there forever?
In this case it was a newish hole (2011) that the user namespace support added that I am closing. I am not super excited but I figure it is useful to make the kernel semantics at least as secure as they were before.
Quoted 9 lines
Simply ptrace yourself, exec the
program, and then dump the program out. A program that really wants to be unreadable should have a stub: the stub is setuid and readable, but all the stub does is to exec the real program, and the real program should have mode 0500 or similar.ISTM the "right" check would be to enforce that the program's new creds can read the program, but that will break backwards compatibility.
Last I looked I had the impression that exec of a setuid program kills the ptrace.
If we are talking about a exec of a simple unreadable executable (aka something that sets undumpable but is not setuid or setgid). Then I agree it should break the ptrace as well and since those programs are as rare as hens teeth I don't see any problem with changing the ptrace behavior in that case.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 87r37dnz74.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
PATCH 1/1 exec: Don't exec files the userns root can not read.
When the user namespace support was merged the need to prevent ptracing an executable that is not readable was overlooked.
Correct this oversight by not letting exec succeed if during exec an executable is not readable and the current user namespace capabilities do not apply to the executable's file.
While it happens that distros install some files setuid and non-readable I have not found any executable files just installed non-readalbe. Executables that are setuid to a user not mapped in a user namespace are worthless, so I don't expect this to introduce any problems in practice.
There may be a way to allow this execution to happen by setting mm->user_ns to a more privileged user namespace and watching out for the possibility of using dynamic linkers or other shared libraries that the kernel loads into the mm to bypass the read-only restriction. But the analysis is more difficult and it would require more code churn so I don't think the effort is worth it.
---
Tossing this out for review in case I missed something silly but this patch seems pretty trivial.
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_aout.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c | 4 +++- fs/binfmt_flat.c | 4 +++- fs/exec.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/binfmts.h | 6 +++++- 7 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
arch/x86/ia32/ia32_aout.c +3 -1
@@ -294,7 +294,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)set_personality (PER_LINUX );set_personality_ia32 (false); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; regs->cs = __USER32_CS; regs->r8 = regs->r9 = regs->r10 = regs->r11 = regs->r12 =
fs/binfmt_aout.c +3 -1
@@ -242,7 +242,9 @@ static int load_aout_binary(struct linux_binprm * bprm)#else set_personality (PER_LINUX );#endif -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) +return retval; current->mm->end_code = ex.a_text + (current->mm->start_code =N_TXTADDR (ex));
fs/binfmt_elf.c +3 -1
@@ -852,7 +852,9 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (!(current->personality &ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE ) && randomize_va_space) current->flags |=PF_RANDOMIZE ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto out_free_dentry;install_exec_creds (bprm);/* Do this so that we can load the interpreter, if need be. We will
fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c +3 -1
@@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static int load_elf_fdpic_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)if (elf_read_implies_exec (&exec_params.hdr, executable_stack)) current->personality |=READ_IMPLIES_EXEC ; -setup_new_exec (bprm); + retval =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (retval) + goto error;set_binfmt (&elf_fdpic_format);
fs/binfmt_flat.c +3 -1
@@ -524,7 +524,9 @@ static int load_flat_file(struct linux_binprm *bprm,/* OK, This is the point of no return */ set_personality (PER_LINUX_32BIT ); -setup_new_exec (bprm); + ret =setup_new_exec (bprm); +if (ret) + goto err; }/*
fs/exec.c +16 -3
@@ -1270,12 +1270,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(flush_old_exec);void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct file *file) { -if (inode_permission (file_inode (file),MAY_READ ) <0 ) +struct inode *inode =file_inode (file); +if (inode_permission (inode,MAY_READ ) <0 ) { +struct user_namespace *user_ns = current->mm->user_ns; bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP ; + +/* May the user_ns root read the executable? */ +if (!kuid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_uid) || + !kgid_has_mapping (user_ns, inode->i_gid)) { + bprm->interp_flags |=BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ; + } + } }EXPORT_SYMBOL (would_dump); -void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) +int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm) {arch_pick_mmap_layout (current->mm);
@@ -1296,12 +1305,15 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)*/ current->mm->task_size =TASK_SIZE ; +would_dump (bprm, bprm->file); +if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE ) +return -EPERM ; +/* install the new credentials */ if (!uid_eq (bprm->cred->uid,current_euid ()) || !gid_eq (bprm->cred->gid,current_egid ())) { current->pdeath_signal =0 ; }else { -would_dump (bprm, bprm->file);if (bprm->interp_flags &BINPRM_FLAGS_ENFORCE_NONDUMP )set_dumpable (current->mm, suid_dumpable); }
@@ -1311,6 +1323,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) current->self_exec_id++;flush_signal_handlers (current,0 );do_close_on_exec (current->files); +return 0 ; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (setup_new_exec);
include/linux/binfmts.h +5 -1
@@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ struct linux_binprm {#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 2#define BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* executable is inaccessible for performing exec */ +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT 3 +#define BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE (1 << BINPRM_FLAGS_EXEC_INACCESSIBLE_BIT) +/* Function parameter for binfmt->coredump */ struct coredump_params {const siginfo_t *siginfo;
@@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ extern int prepare_binprm(struct linux_binprm *);extern int __must_check remove_arg_zero (struct linux_binprm *);extern int search_binary_handler (struct linux_binprm *);extern int flush_old_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); -extern void setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm); +extern int setup_new_exec (struct linux_binprm * bprm);extern void would_dump (struct linux_binprm *,struct file *);extern int suid_dumpable;
Signature · 1 line
2.8.3
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 77 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 48 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 46 lines · Jann Horn
Quoted 44 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
The better security when entering containers came from fixing the the check for unreadable files. Because that is fundamentally what the mm dumpable settings are for.
Oh, interesting.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 6 lines
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)That seems to be a part of this puzzle I have incompletely addressed, thank you.
Quoted 7 lines
It looks like I need to change either the owning user namespace or fail the exec. Malicious dynamic linkers are doubly interesting.
As mount name spaces are also owned if I have privileges I can address the possibility of a malicious dynamic linker that way. AKA who cares about the link if the owner of the mount namespace has permissions to read the file.
Quoted 5 lines
If you just check the owner of the mount namespace, someone could still use a user namespace to
chroot()the process. That should also be sufficient to get the evil linker in. I think it really needs to be the user namespace of the executing process that's checked, not the user namespace associated with some mount namespace.
Something. I will just note that this is hard to analyze and theoretically possible for now, since I don't intend to pursue that solution.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I am going to look at failing the exec if the owning user namespace of the mm would not have permissions to read the file. That should just be a couple of lines of code and easy to maintain. Plus it does not appear that non-readable executables are particularly common.
Hm. Yeah, I guess mode 04111 probably isn't sooo common. From a security perspective, I think that should work.
Well there is at least one common distro that installs sudo
that way so I would not say uncommon. But we already ignore
the suid and sgid bit when executing such executables as without having the uid or gid mapping into a user namespace suid and sgid can not be supported.
So the only case that could cause a real regression/loss of functionality is if there are unreadable executables without the suid or sgid bit set. I can't find any of those.
Patch for this second bug in a moment.
Eric
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 8737jt903u.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Quoted 40 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
Quoted 4 lines
The core goal is to enforce the unreadability of an mm when an non-readable file is executed. This is a time of mm creation property. The enforcement of which fits very well with the
security/permissionchecking role of the user namespace.
How is that going to work? I thought the core goal was better security for entering containers.
If I want to dump a non-readable file, afaik, I can just make a new user namespace, then run the file in there and dump its memory.
I guess you could fix that by entirely prohibiting the execution of a non-readable file whose owner UID is not mapped. (Adding more dumping restrictions wouldn't help much because you could still e.g. supply a malicious dynamic linker if you control the mount namespace.)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Quoted 33 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Quoted 6 lines
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
OK, then my worries about this weird "threading" model is void.
Thanks for the clarification.
Signature · 2 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Quoted 33 lines · Eric W. Biederman
Quoted 23 lines · Michal Hocko
Quoted 12 lines · Eric W. Biederman
During exec dumpable is cleared if the file that is being executed is not readable by the user executing the file. A bug in
ptrace_may_accessallows reading the file if the executable happens to enter into a subordinate user namespace (akaclone(CLONE_NEWUSER),unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER), orsetns(fd, CLONE_NEWUSER).This problem is fixed with only necessary userspace breakage by adding a user namespace owner to
mm_struct, captured at the time of exec, so it is clear in which user namespaceCAP_SYS_PTRACEmust be present in to be able to safely give read permission to the executable.Quoted 4 lines
The function
ptrace_may_accessis modified to verify that the ptracer hasCAP_SYS_ADMINintask->mm->user_nsinstead oftask->cred->user_ns. This ensures that if the task changes it's cred into a subordinate user namespace it does not become ptraceable.I haven't studied your patch too deeply but one thing that immediately raised a red flag was that mm might be shared between processes (aka thread groups). What prevents those two to sit in different user namespaces?
Quoted 4 lines
I am primarily asking because this generated a lot of headache for the memcg handling as those processes might sit in different cgroups while there is only one correct memcg for them which can disagree with the cgroup associated with one of the processes.
That is a legitimate concern, but I do not see any of those kinds of issues here.
Quoted 6 lines
Part of the memcg pain comes from the fact that control groups are process centric, and part of the pain comes from the fact that it is possible to change control groups. What I am doing is making the mm owned by a user namespace (at creation time), and I am not allowing changes to that ownership. The credentials of the tasks that use that mm may be in the same user namespace or descendent user namespaces.
OK, then my worries about this weird "threading" model is void.
Thanks for the clarification.
Signature · 8 lines
Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>