Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:42:35 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait
Message-ID: <20090429134235.GA30585@redhat.com>
References: <20090428223025.GA11997@redhat.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0904291024001.5246@tundra.namei.org> <20090429065809.GA477@redhat.com> <1241007630.18249.141.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090429125606.GA27901@redhat.com> <1241011014.18249.192.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1241011014.18249.192.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2598
Lines: 64

On 04/29, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 14:56 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/29, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 08:58 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to s/IGN/DFL/ and why do we clear ->blocked ? How this can
> > > > help from the security pov?
> > >
> > > We don't want the caller to be able to arrange conditions that prevent
> > > correct handling of signals (e.g. SIGHUP) by the callee.  That was
> > > motivated by a specific attack against newrole, but was a general issue
> > > for any program that runs in a more trusted domain than its caller.
> >
> > Still can't understand...
> >
> > If the new image runs in a more trusted domain, then we should not change
> > SIG_IGN to SIG_DFL ?
> >
> > For example, a user does "nohup setuid_app". Now, why should we change
> > SIG_IGN to SIG_DFL for SIGHUP? This makes setuid_app more "vulnerable"
> > to SIGHUP, not more "protected". Confused.
>
> Not if the app was depending on the default handler for SIGHUP to
> correctly handle vhangup().  The point is that we don't necessarily
> trust the caller to define the handling behavior for signals in the
> callee.  If we trust the caller to do so, then we can grant the
> corresponding permission.
>
> newrole scenario was to run it nohup, logout, wait for other user to
> login on same tty, trigger termination of newrole'd child shell, and
> have newrole relabel other user's tty to attacker's sid.
>
> > OK. Since I don't understand the security magic, you can just ignore me.
> > But I will appreciate any explanation for dummies ;)
> >
> > > As I recall, I based the logic in part on existing logic in
> > > call_usermodehelper().
> >
> > ____call_usermodehelper() does this because we should not exec a user-space
> > application with SIGKILL/SIGSTOP ignored/blocked. We don't have this problem
> > when user-space execs.
>
> But we still have the problem of the caller setting up the signal
> handlers or blocked signal mask prior to exec'ing the privileged
> program, right?

The callee can never setup the signal handler. Note that flush_old_exec()
does flush_signal_handlers() too. But it uses force_default == F.

OK, please forget this. I trust you even if can't understand ;)

My real concerns were SIGKILL and do_wait(), they were addressed.

Thanks!

Oleg.

--
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/