On 22/07/2020 18:16, Thibaut Sautereau wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:39:14PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> >> On 15/07/2020 22:37, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>> @@ -2849,7 +2855,7 @@ static int may_open(const struct path *path, int acc_mode, int flag) >>>> case S_IFLNK: >>>> return -ELOOP; >>>> case S_IFDIR: >>>> - if (acc_mode & (MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC)) >>>> + if (acc_mode & (MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC | MAY_OPENEXEC)) >>>> return -EISDIR; >>>> break; >>> >>> (I need to figure out where "open for reading" rejects S_IFDIR, since >>> it's clearly not here...) > > Doesn't it come from generic_read_dir() in fs/libfs.c? > >>> >>>> case S_IFBLK: >>>> @@ -2859,13 +2865,26 @@ static int may_open(const struct path *path, int acc_mode, int flag) >>>> fallthrough; >>>> case S_IFIFO: >>>> case S_IFSOCK: >>>> - if (acc_mode & MAY_EXEC) >>>> + if (acc_mode & (MAY_EXEC | MAY_OPENEXEC)) >>>> return -EACCES; >>>> flag &= ~O_TRUNC; >>>> break; >>> >>> This will immediately break a system that runs code with MAY_OPENEXEC >>> set but reads from a block, char, fifo, or socket, even in the case of >>> a sysadmin leaving the "file" sysctl disabled. >> >> As documented, O_MAYEXEC is for regular files. The only legitimate use >> case seems to be with pipes, which should probably be allowed when >> enforcement is disabled. > > By the way Kees, while we fix that for the next series, do you think it > would be relevant, at least for the sake of clarity, to add a > WARN_ON_ONCE(acc_mode & MAY_OPENEXEC) for the S_IFSOCK case, since a > socket cannot be open anyway? > We just did some more tests (for the next patch series) and it turns out that may_open() can return EACCES before another part returns ENXIO. As a reminder, the next series will deny access to block devices, character devices, fifo and socket when opened with O_MAYEXEC *and* if any policy is enforced (via the sysctl). The question is then: do we prefer to return EACCES when a policy is enforced (on a socket), or do we stick to the ENXIO? The EACCES approach will be more consistent with devices and fifo handling, and seems safer (belt and suspenders) thought.
