On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:48 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> [Added Eric Biederman, since I think your tree might be a reasonable
>>>>> route forward for these patches.]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:40 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Resending, adding cc:linux-api.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, it may help to add a little more background -- this patch is
>>>>>> needed as a (small) part of implementing Capsicum in the Linux kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Capsicum is a security framework that has been present in FreeBSD since
>>>>>> version 9.0 (Jan 2012), and is based on concepts from object-capability
>>>>>> security [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the features of Capsicum is capability mode, which locks down
>>>>>> access to global namespaces such as the filesystem hierarchy. In
>>>>>> capability mode, /proc is thus inaccessible and so fexecve(3) doesn't
>>>>>> work -- hence the need for a kernel-space
>>>>>
>>>>> I just found myself wanting this syscall for another reason: injecting
>>>>> programs into sandboxes or otherwise heavily locked-down namespaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I want to be able to reliably do something like nsenter
>>>>> --namespace-flags-here toybox sh. Toybox's shell is unusual in that
>>>>> it is more or less fully functional, so this should Just Work (tm),
>>>>> except that the toybox binary might not exist in the namespace being
>>>>> entered. If execveat were available, I could rig nsenter or a similar
>>>>> tool to open it with O_CLOEXEC, enter the namespace, and then call
>>>>> execveat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason that these patches can't be merged more or less as
>>>>> is for 3.19?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There is a silliness in how it implements fexecve. The fexecve
>>>> case should be use the empty string "" not a NULL pointer to indication
>>>> that. That change will then harmonize execveat with the other ...at
>>>> system calls and simplify the code and remove a special case. I believe
>>>> using the empty string "" requires implementing the AT_EMPTY_PATH flag.
>>>
>>> Good point -- I'll shift to "" + AT_EMPTY_PATH.
>>
>> Pending a better idea, I would also see if the patches can be changed
>> to return an error if d_path ends up with an "(unreachable)" thing
>> rather than failing inexplicably later on.
>
> For my reference we are talking about
>
>> @@ -1489,7 +1524,21 @@ static int do_execve_common(struct filename *filename,
>> sched_exec();
>>
>> bprm->file = file;
>> - bprm->filename = bprm->interp = filename->name;
>> + if (filename && fd == AT_FDCWD) {
>> + bprm->filename = filename->name;
>> + } else {
>> + pathbuf = kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_TEMPORARY);
>> + if (!pathbuf) {
>> + retval = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out_unmark;
>> + }
>> + bprm->filename = d_path(&file->f_path, pathbuf, PATH_MAX);
>> + if (IS_ERR(bprm->filename)) {
>> + retval = PTR_ERR(bprm->filename);
>> + goto out_unmark;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + bprm->interp = bprm->filename;
>>
>> retval = bprm_mm_init(bprm);
>> if (retval)
>
> The interesting case for fexecve is when we either don't know what files
> are present or we don't want to depend on which files are present.
>
> As Al pointed out d_path really isn't the right solution. It fails when
> printing /proc/self/fd/${fd}/${filename->name} would work, and the
> "(deleted)" or "(unreachable)" strings are wrong.
>
> The test for today's cases should be:
> if ((filename->name[0] == '/') || fd == AT_FDCWD) {
> bprm->filename = filename->name;
> }
>
> To handle the case where the file descriptor is relevant.
(s/relevant/irrelevant)
Yep, good spot.
> For the case where the file descriptor is relevant let me suggest
> setting bprm->filename and bprm->interp to:
>
> /dev/fd/${fd}/${filename->name}
I'll send out an updated patchset with this approach, but I have a slight
reservation. Given that /dev/fd is a symlink to /proc/self/fd, this approach
means that script invocations will always fail on a /proc-less system,
where the previous iteration might have worked.
(As it happens, this isn't a restriction that affects the things I'm
working on, as Capsicum wouldn't allow script invocation anyway.
However, scenarios without /proc were nominally one of the motivating
factors for execveat in the first place...)
> It is more a description of what we have done but as a magic string it
> is descriptive. Documetation/devices.txt documents that /dev/fd/ should
> exist, making it an unambiguous path. Further these days the kernel
> sets the device naming policy in dev, so I think we are strongly safe in
> using that path in any event.
>
> I think execveat is interesting in the kernel because the motivating
> cases are the cases where anything except a static executable is
> uninteresting.
FYI, there is potential in the future for something other than static
executables -- the FreeBSD Capsicum implementation includes changes
to the dynamic linker to get its search path as a list of pre-opened dfds
(in LD_LIBRARY_PATH_FDS) rather than paths.
> Now it has been suggested creating a dupfs or a mini-proc. I think that
> sounds like a nice companion, to the concept of a locked down root.
> But I don't think it removes the need for execveat (because we still
> have the case where we don't want to care what is mounted, and are happy
> to use static executables).
>
> Eric
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
