Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37713-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:50:30 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
Message-ID: <202401241348.1A2860EB58@keescook>
References: <20240124192228.work.788-kees@kernel.org>
 <CAG48ez017tTwxXbxdZ4joVDv5i8FLWEjk=K_z1Vf=pf0v1=cTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202401241206.031E2C75B@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wiUwRG7LuR=z5sbkFVGQh+7qVB6_1NM0Ny9SVNL1Un4Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202401241310.0A158998@keescook>
 <CAG48ez1tcxtEwWgxSUqLDcYbrkY=UM3hz22A0BTvTYq4BGpM8A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1tcxtEwWgxSUqLDcYbrkY=UM3hz22A0BTvTYq4BGpM8A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:40:49PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:47:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 12:15, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmpf, and frustratingly Ubuntu (and Debian) still builds with
> > > > CONFIG_USELIB, even though it was reported[2] to them almost 4 years ago.
> >
> > For completeness, Fedora hasn't had CONFIG_USELIB for a while now.
> >
> > > Well, we could just remove the __FMODE_EXEC from uselib.
> > >
> > > It's kind of wrong anyway.
> >
> > Yeah.
> >
> > > So I think just removing __FMODE_EXEC would just do the
> > > RightThing(tm), and changes nothing for any sane situation.
> >
> > Agreed about these:
> >
> > - fs/fcntl.c is just doing a bitfield sanity check.
> >
> > - nfs_open_permission_mask(), as you say, is only checking for
> >   unreadable case.
> >
> > - fsnotify would also see uselib() as a read, but afaict,
> >   that's what it would see for an mmap(), so this should
> >   be functionally safe.
> >
> > This one, though, I need some more time to examine:
> >
> > - AppArmor, TOMOYO, and LandLock will see uselib() as an
> >   open-for-read, so that might still be a problem? As you
> >   say, it's more of a mmap() call, but that would mean
> >   adding something a call like security_mmap_file() into
> >   uselib()...
> >
> > The issue isn't an insane "support uselib() under AppArmor" case, but
> > rather "Can uselib() be used to bypass exec/mmap checks?"
> >
> > This totally untested patch might give appropriate coverage:
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index d179abb78a1c..0c9265312c8d 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(uselib, const char __user *, library)
> >         if (IS_ERR(file))
> >                 goto out;
> >
> > +       error = security_mmap_file(file, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_FIXED | MAP_SHARED);
> > +       if (error)
> > +               goto exit;
> 
> Call path from here is:
> 
> sys_uselib -> load_elf_library -> elf_load -> elf_map -> vm_mmap ->
> vm_mmap_pgoff
> 
> Call path for normal mmap is:
> 
> sys_mmap_pgoff -> ksys_mmap_pgoff -> vm_mmap_pgoff
> 
> So I think the call paths converge before any real security checks
> happen, and the check you're suggesting should be superfluous. (There
> is some weird audit call in ksys_mmap_pgoff() but that's just to
> record the FD number, so I guess that doesn't matter.)

Yeah, I was just noticing this. I was over thinking. :) It does look
like all that is needed is to remove __FMODE_EXEC.

-- 
Kees Cook