On Wednesday, June 19, 2024 23:41 EEST, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:39:44PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > > Hi > > > > Thanks for the patch ! > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 6:40 AM Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Prior to v2.6.39 write access to /proc/<pid>/mem was restricted, > > > after which it got allowed in commit 198214a7ee50 ("proc: enable > > > writing to /proc/pid/mem"). Famous last words from that patch: > > > "no longer a security hazard". :) > > > > > > Afterwards exploits started causing drama like [1]. The exploits > > > using /proc/*/mem can be rather sophisticated like [2] which > > > installed an arbitrary payload from noexec storage into a running > > > process then exec'd it, which itself could include an ELF loader > > > to run arbitrary code off noexec storage. > > > > > > One of the well-known problems with /proc/*/mem writes is they > > > ignore page permissions via FOLL_FORCE, as opposed to writes via > > > process_vm_writev which respect page permissions. These writes can > > > also be used to bypass mode bits. > > > > > > To harden against these types of attacks, distrbutions might want > > > to restrict /proc/pid/mem accesses, either entirely or partially, > > > for eg. to restrict FOLL_FORCE usage. > > > > > > Known valid use-cases which still need these accesses are: > > > > > > * Debuggers which also have ptrace permissions, so they can access > > > memory anyway via PTRACE_POKEDATA & co. Some debuggers like GDB > > > are designed to write /proc/pid/mem for basic functionality. > > > > > > * Container supervisors using the seccomp notifier to intercept > > > syscalls and rewrite memory of calling processes by passing > > > around /proc/pid/mem file descriptors. > > > > > > There might be more, that's why these params default to disabled. > > > > > > Regarding other mechanisms which can block these accesses: > > > > > > * seccomp filters can be used to block mmap/mprotect calls with W|X > > > perms, but they often can't block open calls as daemons want to > > > read/write their runtime state and seccomp filters cannot check > > > file paths, so plain write calls can't be easily blocked. > > > > > > * Since the mem file is part of the dynamic /proc/<pid>/ space, we > > > can't run chmod once at boot to restrict it (and trying to react > > > to every process and run chmod doesn't scale, and the kernel no > > > longer allows chmod on any of these paths). > > > > > > * SELinux could be used with a rule to cover all /proc/*/mem files, > > > but even then having multiple ways to deny an attack is useful in > > > case one layer fails. > > > > > > Thus we introduce four kernel parameters to restrict /proc/*/mem > > > access: open-read, open-write, write and foll_force. All these can > > > be independently set to the following values: > > > > > > all => restrict all access unconditionally. > > > ptracer => restrict all access except for ptracer processes. > > > > > > If left unset, the existing behaviour is preserved, i.e. access > > > is governed by basic file permissions. > > > > > > Examples which can be passed by bootloaders: > > > > > > proc_mem.restrict_foll_force=all > > > proc_mem.restrict_open_write=ptracer > > > proc_mem.restrict_open_read=ptracer > > > proc_mem.restrict_write=all > > > > > > These knobs can also be enabled via Kconfig like for eg: > > > > > > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_PTRACE_DEFAULT=y > > > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_FOLL_FORCE_PTRACE_DEFAULT=y > > > > > > Each distribution needs to decide what restrictions to apply, > > > depending on its use-cases. Embedded systems might want to do > > > more, while general-purpouse distros might want a more relaxed > > > policy, because for e.g. foll_force=all and write=all both break > > > break GDB, so it might be a bit excessive. > > > > > > Based on an initial patch by Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > > It is noteworthy that ChromeOS has benefited from blocking > > /proc/pid/mem write since 2017 [1], owing to the patch implemented by > > Mike Frysinger. > > > > It is great that upstream can consider this patch, ChromeOS will use > > the solution once it is accepted. > > > > > Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/476947/ [1] > > > Link: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40089045 [2] > > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Co-developed-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [1] https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/764773 > > Thanks for the testing! What settings did you use? I think Chrome OS was > effectively doing this? > > PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_READ_OFF=y > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_WRITE_ALL=y > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_WRITE_ALL=y > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_FOLL_FORCE_ALL=y Correct except for CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_WRITE_ALL=y which will make ChromeOS boot loop because upstart/systemd-tmpfiles will fail and trigger a recovery + reboot, then the kernel will again block opening the file and so on. :) ChromeOS effectively only blocks all writes which also blocks all foll_force. > > Though I don't see the FOLL_FORCE changes in the linked Chrome OS patch, > but I suspect it's unreachable with > CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_WRITE_ALL=y. That is correct, CONFIG_PROC_MEM_RESTRICT_OPEN_WRITE_ALL=y also blocks FOLL_FORCE. The idea there is to restrict writes entirely in production images via Kconfig and then relax the restriction in dev/test images via boot params proc_mem.restrict_write=ptracer proc_mem.restrict_foll_force=ptracer See this CL: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/platform/vboot_reference/+/5631026