On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Normally, when a user can modify a file that has setuid or setgid bits,
>>>>> those bits are cleared when they are not the file owner or a member
>>>>> of the group. This is enforced when using write and truncate but not
>>>>> when writing to a shared mmap on the file. This could allow the file
>>>>> writer to gain privileges by changing a binary without losing the
>>>>> setuid/setgid/caps bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing the bits requires holding inode->i_mutex, so it cannot be done
>>>>> during the page fault (due to mmap_sem being held during the fault). We
>>>>> could do this during vm_mmap_pgoff, but that would need coverage in
>>>>> mprotect as well, but to check for MAP_SHARED, we'd need to hold mmap_sem
>>>>> again. We could clear at open() time, but it's possible things are
>>>>> accidentally opening with O_RDWR and only reading. Better to clear on
>>>>> close and error failures (i.e. an improvement over now, which is not
>>>>> clearing at all).
>>>>
>>>> I think this should be done in mmap/mprotect. Code in sys_mmap is trivial.
>>>>
>>>> In sys_mprotect you can check file_needs_remove_privs() and VM_SHARED
>>>> under mmap_sem, then if needed grab reference to struct file from vma and
>>>> clear suid after unlocking mmap_sem.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen previous iterations, probably this approach has known flaws.
>>>
>>> mmap_sem is still needed in mprotect (to find and hold the vma), so
>>> it's not possible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I didn't see a
>>> way.
>>
>> something like this
>>
>> @@ -375,6 +376,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
>>
>> vm_flags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot);
>>
>> +restart:
>> down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
>>
>> vma = find_vma(current->mm, start);
>> @@ -416,6 +418,21 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start,
>> size_t, len,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + if ((newflags & VM_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
>> + vma->vm_file && file_needs_remove_privs(vma->vm_file)) {
>> + struct file *file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
>> +
>> + start = vma->vm_start;
>> + up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
>> + mutex_lock(&file_inode(file)->i_mutex);
>> + error = file_remove_privs(file);
>> + mutex_unlock(&file_inode(file)->i_mutex);
>> + fput(file);
>> + if (error)
>> + return error;
>> + goto restart;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Is this safe against the things Al mentioned? I still don't like the
> mmap/mprotect approach because it makes the change before anything was
> actually written...
(I forgot to check VM_SHARED)
Yep, this should be safe.
I think suid should be cleared before any possible change of data.
New content could hit the disk but suid never be cleared,
for example if system suddenly crashed or rebooted.
>
> -Kees
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Kees
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kees Cook
>>> Chrome OS & Brillo Security
>
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS & Brillo Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
