Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171109032134.GA15666@mail.hallyn.com>
References: <20171106150302.GA26634@mail.hallyn.com> <1510003994.736.0.camel@gmail.com>
 <20171106221418.GA32543@mail.hallyn.com> <CAFUG7CcEy9a=RxBQZJR-C_2VuhZXrzJ_QxJnrSxdM=ox36DsXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171106233913.GA1518@mail.hallyn.com> <CAFUG7CcW077LHcQEqk7qy7iVvmi-3J8psD1Kwj45XvHThiZC6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171107032802.GA6669@mail.hallyn.com> <CAF2d9jiwu3Ss7Dtem8qSptKgMc0Mc_o8MAAJkWM5CwJaFsbrcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171108190223.vdkyepcaegmub6le@gmail.com> <CAF2d9jjed4Q7QvCD9Kpaa7L-Ngg3XFbJvt0jNVUUwt=52wDjjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171109032134.GA15666@mail.hallyn.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?TWFoZXNoIEJhbmRld2FyICjgpK7gpLngpYfgpLYg4KSs4KSC4KSh4KWH4KS14KS+4KSwKQ==?= 
        <maheshb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:18:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAF2d9jgs5MYn1dMT2mbhF=6UB2Hoo5kwmJhXuE6memBfWzkWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] userns: control
 capabilities of some user namespaces
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
        Boris Lukashev <blukashev@sempervictus.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>,
        Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel-hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[resend response as earlier one failed because of formatting issues]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:55:41AM +0900, Mahesh Bandewar (=E0=A4=AE=E0=
=A4=B9=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=B6 =E0=A4=AC=E0=A4=82=E0=A4=A1=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=B5=E0=
=A4=BE=E0=A4=B0) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Christian Brauner
> > <christian.brauner@canonical.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:09:59AM -0800, Mahesh Bandewar (=E0=A4=AE=
=E0=A4=B9=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=B6 =E0=A4=AC=E0=A4=82=E0=A4=A1=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=B5=
=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=B0) wrote:
> > >> Sorry folks I was traveling and seems like lot happened on this thre=
ad. :p
> > >>
> > >> I will try to response few of these comments selectively -
> > >>
> > >> > The thing that makes me hesitate with this set is that it is a
> > >> > permanent new feature to address what (I hope) is a temporary
> > >> > problem.
> > >> I agree this is permanent new feature but it's not solving a tempora=
ry
> > >> problem. It's impossible to assess what and when new vulnerability
> > >> that could show up. I think Daniel summed it up appropriately in his
> > >> response
> > >>
> > >> > Seems like there are two naive ways to do it, the first being to j=
ust
> > >> > look at all code under ns_capable() plus code called from there.  =
It
> > >> > seems like looking at the result of that could be fruitful.
> > >> This is really hard. The main issue that there were features designe=
d
> > >> and developed before user-ns days with an assumption that unprivileg=
ed
> > >> users will never get certain capabilities which only root user gets.
> > >> Now that is not true anymore with user-ns creation with mapping root
> > >> for any process. Also at the same time blocking user-ns creation for
> > >> eveyone is a big-hammer which is not needed too. So it's not that ea=
sy
> > >> to just perform a code-walk-though and correct those decisions now.
> > >>
> > >> > It seems to me that the existing control in
> > >> > /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_userns_clone might be the better duc=
t tape
> > >> > in that case.
> > >> This solution is essentially blocking unprivileged users from using
> > >> the user-namespaces entirely. This is not really a solution that can
> > >> work. The solution that this patch-set adds allows unprivileged user=
s
> > >> to create user-namespaces. Actually the proposed solution is more
> > >> fine-grained approach than the unprivileged_userns_clone solution
> > >> since you can selectively block capabilities rather than completely
> > >> blocking the functionality.
> > >
> > > I've been talking to St=C3=A9phane today about this and we should als=
o keep in mind
> > > that we have:
> > >
> > > chb@conventiont|~
> > >> ls -al /proc/sys/user/
> > > total 0
> > > dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Nov  6 23:32 .
> > > dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Nov  2 22:13 ..
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_cgroup_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_inotify_instances
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_inotify_watches
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_ipc_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_mnt_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_net_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_pid_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_user_namespaces
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov  8 19:48 max_uts_namespaces
> > >
> > > These files allow you to limit the number of namespaces that can be c=
reated
> > > *per namespace* type. So let's say your system runs a bunch of user n=
amespaces
> > > you can do:
> > >
> > > chb@conventiont|~
> > >> echo 0 > /proc/sys/user/max_user_namespaces
> > >
> > > So that the next time you try to create a user namespaces you'd see:
> > >
> > > chb@conventiont|~
> > >> unshare -U
> > > unshare: unshare failed: No space left on device
> > >
> > > So there's not even a need to upstream a new sysctl since we have way=
s of
> > > blocking this.
> > >
> > I'm not sure how it's solving the problem that my patch-set is addressi=
ng?
> > I agree though that the need for unprivileged_userns_clone sysctl goes
> > away as this is equivalent to setting that sysctl to 0 as you have
> > described above.
>
> oh right that was the reasoning iirc for not needing the other sysctl.
>
> > However as I mentioned earlier, blocking processes from creating
> > user-namespaces is not the solution. Processes should be able to
> > create namespaces as they are designed but at the same time we need to
> > have controls to 'contain' them if a need arise. Setting max_no to 0
> > is not the solution that I'm looking for since it doesn't solve the
> > problem.
>
> well yesterday we were told that was explicitly not the goal, but that wa=
s
> not by you ... i just mention it to explain why we seem to be walking in
> circles a bit.
>
> anyway the bounding set doesn't actually make sense so forget that.   the
> question then is just whether it makes sense to allow things to continue
> at all in this situation.  would you mind indulging me by giving one or t=
wo
> concrete examples in the previous known cves of what capabilities you wou=
ld
> have dropped tto allow the rest to continue to be safely used?
>
Of course. Let's take an example of the CVE that I have mentioned in
my cover-letter -
CVE-2017-7308(https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=3DCVE-2017-730=
8).
It's well documented and even has a
exploit(https://github.com/xairy/kernel-exploits/tree/master/CVE-2017-7308)
c-program that can demonstrate how it can be used against non-patched
kernel. There is very nice blog
post(https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.kr/2017/05/exploiting-linux-kernel-=
via-packet.html)
about this vulnerability by Andrey Konovalov.

This is about the AF_PACKET socket interface that is protected behind
NET_RAW capability. This capability is not available to unprivileged
user. However, any unprivileged user can get NET_RAW capability (as
demonstrated in the cover-letter code that I have attached in this
patch series) so this NET_RAW capability is available to any
unprivileged user on the host if the kernel has user-namespaces
available.

With this patch-set applied, all that is needed is to flip a bit with
the sysctl (kernel.controlled_userns_caps_whitelist) as demonstrated
below -

root@lphh6:~# uname -a
Linux lphh6 4.14.0-smp-DEV #97 SMP @1510203579 x86_64 GNU/Linux
root@lphh6:~# sysctl -q kernel.controlled_userns_caps_whitelist
kernel.controlled_userns_caps_whitelist =3D 1f,ffffffff

Now when I run the program (demo from the cover-letter) as a normal
unprivileged user I can't create a RAW socket in init-ns but I can in
the child-ns.

dumbo@lphh6:~$ /tmp/acquire_raw
Attempting to open RAW socket before unshare()...
socket() SOCK_RAW failed: : Operation not permitted
Attempting to open RAW socket after unshare()...
Successfully opened RAW-Sock after unshare().
dumbo@lphh6:~$

Now as a root user. Take off CAP_NET_RAW

root@lphh6:~# sysctl -w kernel.controlled_userns_caps_whitelist=3D1f,ffffdf=
ff
kernel.controlled_userns_caps_whitelist =3D 1f,ffffdfff
root@lphh6:~#

Now run the same program as an unprivileged user -

dumbo@lphh6:~$ /tmp/acquire_raw
Attempting to open RAW socket before unshare()...
socket() SOCK_RAW failed: : Operation not permitted
Attempting to open RAW socket after unshare()...
socket() SOCK_RAW failed: : Operation not permitted
dumbo@lphh6:~$

Notice that it has failed to create a raw socket in init and in child
namespace. It's not blocking creation of user-namespaces but allowing
admin turn individual capability bits on and off.

This is very simplistic example of just demonstrating how capability
bits turn-on/off works. So let's assume a sandboxed environment where
we don't know what a binary that we are about run in an environment
which is identified as susceptible. By turning off the NET_RAW bit,
the admin gets an assurance that system is safe and if binary fails
because it's not getting this capability then that bad but a sad
consequence (without compromising the host integrity) but if it
doesn't use the NET_RAW capability but any other combination of
remaining 36 capabilities, it would get whatever is necessary. This
means we can safely allow processes to create user-namespaces by
taking off certain capabilities in question for temporary/extended
period until proper fix is applied without compromising the system
integrity. The impact will vary based on which capability is taken off
and admin would / should be ware of for the environment that he/she is
dealing with.

thanks,
--mahesh..

> thanks,
> serge

From 1583557114292953021@xxx Thu Nov 09 03:22:28 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583003759650790753
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread