On 2019-09-07, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019-09-06, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 03:13 +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > On 2019-09-06, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 18:06 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > > > On 06/09/2019 17:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > > Let's assume I want to add support for this to the glibc dynamic loader,
> > > > > > while still being able to run on older kernels.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it safe to try the open call first, with O_MAYEXEC, and if that fails
> > > > > > with EINVAL, try again without O_MAYEXEC?
> > > > >
> > > > > The kernel ignore unknown open(2) flags, so yes, it is safe even for
> > > > > older kernel to use O_MAYEXEC.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well...maybe. What about existing programs that are sending down bogus
> > > > open flags? Once you turn this on, they may break...or provide a way to
> > > > circumvent the protections this gives.
> > >
> > > It should be noted that this has been a valid concern for every new O_*
> > > flag introduced (and yet we still introduced new flags, despite the
> > > concern) -- though to be fair, O_TMPFILE actually does have a
> > > work-around with the O_DIRECTORY mask setup.
> > >
> > > The openat2() set adds O_EMPTYPATH -- though in fairness it's also
> > > backwards compatible because empty path strings have always given ENOENT
> > > (or EINVAL?) while O_EMPTYPATH is a no-op non-empty strings.
> > >
> > > > Maybe this should be a new flag that is only usable in the new openat2()
> > > > syscall that's still under discussion? That syscall will enforce that
> > > > all flags are recognized. You presumably wouldn't need the sysctl if you
> > > > went that route too.
> > >
> > > I'm also interested in whether we could add an UPGRADE_NOEXEC flag to
> > > how->upgrade_mask for the openat2(2) patchset (I reserved a flag bit for
> > > it, since I'd heard about this work through the grape-vine).
> > >
> >
> > I rather like the idea of having openat2 fds be non-executable by
> > default, and having userland request it specifically via O_MAYEXEC (or
> > some similar openat2 flag) if it's needed. Then you could add an
> > UPGRADE_EXEC flag instead?
> >
> > That seems like something reasonable to do with a brand new API, and
> > might be very helpful for preventing certain classes of attacks.
>
> In that case, maybe openat2(2) should default to not allowing any
> upgrades by default? The reason I pitched UPGRADE_NOEXEC is because
> UPGRADE_NO{READ,WRITE} are the existing @how->upgrade_mask flags.
Sorry, another issue is that there isn't a current way to really
restrict fexecve() permissions (from my [limited] understanding,
__FMODE_EXEC isn't the right thing to use) -- so we can't blanket block
exec through openat2() O_PATH descriptors and add UPGRADE_EXEC later.
We would have to implement FMODE_EXEC (and FMODE_MAP_EXEC as you
suggested) in order to implement FMODE_UPGRADE_EXEC before we could even
get a first version of openat2(2) in. Though, I do (a little
begrudgingly) agree that we should have a safe default if possible
(magical O_PATH reopening trickery is something that most people don't
know about and probably wouldn't want to happen if they did).
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
