On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> setgroups is unique in not needing a valid mapping before it can be called,
>>> in the case of setgroups(0, NULL) which drops all supplemental groups.
>>>
>>> The design of the user namespace assumes that CAP_SETGID can not actually
>>> be used until a gid mapping is established. Therefore add a helper function
>>> to see if the user namespace gid mapping has been established and call
>>> that function in the setgroups permission check.
>>>
>>> This is part of the fix for CVE-2014-8989, being able to drop groups
>>> without privilege using user namespaces.
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/user_namespace.h | 9 +++++++++
>>> kernel/groups.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/user_namespace.h b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>> index e95372654f09..41cc26e5a350 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>> @@ -37,6 +37,15 @@ struct user_namespace {
>>>
>>> extern struct user_namespace init_user_ns;
>>>
>>> +static inline bool userns_gid_mappings_established(const struct user_namespace *ns)
>>> +{
>>> + bool established;
>>> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
>>> + established = ACCESS_ONCE(ns->gid_map.nr_extents) != 0;
>>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>> + return established;
>>> +}
>>
>> I don't think this works on all platforms. ACCESS_ONCE is not atomic
>> in the smp_mb__before_atomic sense.
>
> Documentation/atomic_ops.txt documents ACCESS_ONCE as being equivalent
> to atomic_read() and atomic_set(). smp_mb__before_atomic and
> smp_mb__after_atomic() are Documented as working with atomic_read and
> atomic_set. Maybe it is a stretch to use them but it doesn't seem like
> much of a stretch.
I don't fully understand the design there. I think this is an attempt
to work around the fact that test_bit is fully atomic on x86 but not
elsewhere.
>
> Further at this point I don't know that any barriers are strictly
> needed, beyond the ACCESS_ONCE. However since x86 does all of the
> ordering in hardware that I need I am not going to find any bugs that
> don't require a barrier.
>
> All I really want is the same level of barriers I would get if I used a
> spin-lock protected data structure so I don't need to worry about
> crazy smp issues that happen when the hardware decides it is safe to
> reorder things.
Use smp_rmb(), I think. It'll be obviously correct, and the
performance impact really doesn't matter.
Also, on platforms where this stuff matters, the barrier in
smp_mb__whatever will be a full fence, whereas smp_rmb may be lighter
weight.
--Andy
>
> Eric
>
>
>>> +
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_USER_NS
>>>
>>> static inline struct user_namespace *get_user_ns(struct user_namespace *ns)
>>> diff --git a/kernel/groups.c b/kernel/groups.c
>>> index 02d8a251c476..e0335e44f76a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/groups.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/groups.c
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>> #include <linux/security.h>
>>> #include <linux/syscalls.h>
>>> +#include <linux/user_namespace.h>
>>> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>>>
>>> /* init to 2 - one for init_task, one to ensure it is never freed */
>>> @@ -217,7 +218,11 @@ bool may_setgroups(void)
>>> {
>>> struct user_namespace *user_ns = current_user_ns();
>>>
>>> - return ns_capable(user_ns, CAP_SETGID);
>>> + /* It is not safe to use setgroups until a gid mapping in
>>> + * the user namespace has been established.
>>> + */
>>> + return userns_gid_mappings_established(user_ns) &&
>>> + ns_capable(user_ns, CAP_SETGID);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>
>> --Andy
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
