Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754787Ab3JBSAu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:00:50 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173]:40256 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754539Ab3JBSAs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:00:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+APTTSKh_xvgpzV3wNYseQxafbKqQ3NyvUe50aGOOBGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1380659178-28605-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@opendz.org>
 <524B7999.60806@amacapital.net> <20131002143759.GA2966@dztty>
 <CALCETrUcg4o5QeGMP1rRAzJSfjwS=qD3DsDWV3=fPJQOA3xkKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXu5j+APTTSKh_xvgpzV3wNYseQxafbKqQ3NyvUe50aGOOBGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrW05=Jk_nCakZgjwJjbdG-X-f=ssFntB3Xpe1ogxiTMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] procfs: protect /proc/<pid>/* files with file->f_cred
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4063
Lines: 97

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:40:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2013 01:26 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote:
>>>> > /proc/<pid>/* entries varies at runtime, appropriate permission checks
>>>> > need to happen during each system call.
>>>> >
>>>> > Currently some of these sensitive entries are protected by performing
>>>> > the ptrace_may_access() check. However even with that the /proc file
>>>> > descriptors can be passed to a more privileged process
>>>> > (e.g. a suid-exec) which will pass the classic ptrace_may_access()
>>>> > check. In general the ->open() call will be issued by an unprivileged
>>>> > process while the ->read(),->write() calls by a more privileged one.
>>>> >
>>>> > Example of these files are:
>>>> > /proc/*/syscall, /proc/*/stack etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > And any open(/proc/self/*) then suid-exec to read()/write() /proc/self/*
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > These files are protected during read() by the ptrace_may_access(),
>>>> > however the file descriptor can be passed to a suid-exec which can be
>>>> > used to read data and bypass ASLR. Of course this was discussed several
>>>> > times on LKML.
>>>>
>>>> Can you elaborate on what it is that you're fixing?  That is, can you
>>>> give a concrete example of what process opens what file and passes the
>>>> fd to what process?
>>> Yes, the references were already given in this email:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/31/209
>>>
>>> This has been discussed several times on lkml:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/28/544
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/28/564 (check Kees's references)
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm having trouble following your description.
>>> Process open a /proc file and pass the fd to a more privilaged process
>>> that will pass the ptrace_may_access() check, while the original process
>>> that opened that file should fail at the ptrace_may_access()
>>
>> So we're talking about two kinds of attacks, right?
>
> Correct.
>
>> Type 1: Unprivileged process does something like open("/proc/1/maps",
>> O_RDONLY) and then passes the resulting fd to something privileged.
>
> ... and then leaks contents back to unprivileged process.
>
>> Type 2: Unprivileged process does something like
>> open("/proc/self/maps", O_RDONLY) and then forks.  The parent calls
>> execve on something privileged.
>
> ... and then parent snoops on file contents for the privileged child.
>
> (Type 2 is solved currently, IIUC. Type 1 could be reduced in scope by
> changing these file modes back to 0400.)
>
>> Can we really not get away with fixing type 1 by preventing these
>> files from being opened in the first place and type 2 by revoking all
>> of these fds when a privilege-changing exec happens?
>
> Type 1 can be done via exec as well. Instead of using a priv exec to
> read an arbitrary process, read it could read its own.

Right.

>
> I think revoking the fd would be great. Does that mechanism exist?

There's this thing that never got merged.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1523331

But doing it more directly should be reasonably straightforward.  Either:

(a) when a process execs and privileges change, find all the old proc
inodes, mark them dead, and unlink them, or

(b) add self_exec_id to all the proc file private_data entries (or
somewhere else).  Then just make sure that they're unchanged.  I think
the bug last time around was because the self_exec_id and struct pid
weren't being compared together.

(a) is probably nicer.  I don't know if it'll break things.  Linus
seemed to think that the Chrome sandbox was sensitive to this stuff,
but I don't know why.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/