Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756772AbZCLQDV (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753195AbZCLQDM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:12 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:58493 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752866AbZCLQDL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:03:00 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Igor Zhbanov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, neilb@suse.de, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, David Howells , James Morris , Andrew Morgan Subject: Re: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS_MASK? Message-ID: <20090312160300.GC13046@us.ibm.com> References: <20090311232356.GP13540@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090311232356.GP13540@fieldses.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4507 Lines: 106 Quoting J. Bruce Fields (bfields@fieldses.org): > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:53:34PM +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote: > > Hello! > > > > It seems that CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE were forgotten to be (Still looking into this, but meanwhile...) > > added to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x and to CAP_FS_MASK in > > linux-2.4.x. Both capabilities affects file system and can be > > considered file system capabilities. > > Sounds right to me--I'd expect rootsquash to guarantee that new device > nodes can't be created from the network. Cc'ing random people from the > git log for include/linux/capability.h in hopes they can help. > > --b. > > (Also: my copy of mknod(2) claims "Linux... does not have the CAP_MKNOD > capability". I assume the manpage is out of date?) No, the whole paragraph is: EPERM mode requested creation of something other than a regular file, FIFO (named pipe), or Unix domain socket, and the caller is not privileged (Linux: does not have the CAP_MKNOD capability); So it's saying that 'caller is not privileged', in linux, can be interpreted to mean 'the caller does not have CAP_MKNOD'. > > > > > Let's look at linux-2.6.x. > > > > In include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_SET is defined to contain > > following capabilities: > > CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER, > > CAP_FSETID and CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE. > > > > And CAP_NFSD_SET is defined to be the same plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. > > > > So, both CAP_FS_SET and CAP_NFSD_SET doesn't include CAP_MKNOD and > > CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE. > > > > Also include/linux/capability.h there are cap_drop_fs_set(...), > > cap_raise_fs_set(...), > > cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) and cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) inline functions that return > > corresponding capabilities sets. > > > > Let's look how these functions are used. > > > > In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) calls > > cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) and > > cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from > > effective set of current nfsd process. > > > > And in file security/commoncap.c function cap_task_post_setuid(...) calls > > cap_drop_fs_set(...) and cap_raise_fs_set(...) to change effective set > > of current task > > when (current->fsuid != old_ruid). > > > > In linux-2.4.x the story is the same. > > > > In file include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_MASK is defined to contain > > CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER, CAP_FSETID > > capabilities. > > > > And in file fs/nfsd/auth.c CAP_NFSD_MASK is defined to be same as CAP_FS_MASK > > plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE. > > > > In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) uses CAP_NFSD_MASK > > to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current > > nfsd process. > > > > And CAP_FS_MASK used in file kernel/sys.c in function sys_setfsuid(...) > > to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current task. > > > > This can be exploited (and I have succesfully tried it). > > > > Suppose you have NFS-share exported even with root_squash option. > > If one client was compromised, local root can set CAP_MKNOD to some > > local user's process. Then that user can execute mknod to create a device > > that will be owned by that user, e.g. block device file for /dev/hda hard drive. > > > > And he can create that device file on NFS-share (even exported with root_squash > > option). After that he can someway (ssh, cgi) execute code on another nfs client > > or the server to modify it's filesystem. It will be possible because > > he owns that > > device file on nfs share. > > > > The problem is because CAP_MKNOD allows that user to successfully execute > > vfs_mknod(...) function on local host, and that function will call corresponding > > function in nfs module which sends request to NFS server. And nfsd will not > > drop CAP_MKNOD in nfsd_setuser(...) function when impersonating to that user. > > > > Of course, NFS-shares can be mounted with nodev option, but they should be > > placed on separate partition on NFS-server, so even on server that partition > > is mounted with nodev option too. > > > > So I suggest to add CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE to CAP_FS_MASK > > in linux-2.4.x and to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x. -- 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/