On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Dirk Steinmetz
<public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:20:38 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Dirk Steinmetz
>> <public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > In order to hardlink to a sgid-executable, it is sufficient to be the
>> > file's owner. When hardlinking within an unprivileged user namespace, the
>> > users of that namespace could thus use hardlinks to pin setgid binaries
>> > owned by themselves (or any mapped uid, with CAP_FOWNER) and a gid outside
>> > of the namespace. This is a possible security risk.
>>
>> How would such a file appear within the namespace? Wouldn't the gid
>> have to map to something inside the namespace?
>>
>> >
>> > This change prevents hardlinking of sgid-executables within user
>> > namespaces, if the file is not owned by a mapped gid.
>>
>> For clarity, this should say "... is not group-owned by a mapped git." correct?
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Dirk Steinmetz <public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > MISSING: Documentation/sysctl/fs.txt not updated, as this patch is
>> > intended for discussion.
>> >
>> > If there are no further misunderstandings on my side, this patch is what
>> > Serge and I agree on (modulo my not-that-much-linux-kernel-experience
>> > codestyle, feel free to suggest improvements!).
>> >
>> > The new condition for sgid-executables is equivalent to
>> >> inode_owner_or_capable(inode) && kgid_has_mapping(ns, inode->i_gid)
>> > which, as recommended by Serge, does not change the behaviour for the init
>> > namespace. It fixes the problem of pinning parent namespace's gids.
>> >
>> > However, I think the "same" security issue is also valid within any
>> > namespace, for regular users pinning other gids within the same namespace.
>> > I already presented an example for that in a previous mail:
>> > - A file has the setgid and user/group executable bits set, and is owned
>> > by user:group.
>> > - The user 'user' is not in the group 'group', and does not have any
>> > capabilities.
>> > - The user 'user' hardlinks the file. The permission check will succeed,
>> > as the user is the owner of the file.
>> > - The file is replaced with a newer version (for example fixing a security
>> > issue)
>> > - Now user can still use the hardlink-pinned version to execute the file
>> > as 'user:group' (and for example exploit the security issue).
>>
>> I believe this to be an unneeded check is the stated configuration
>> (setgid but without group ownership) is itself a security flaw. This
>> allows the user already to gain those group privileges even without
>> needing to pin the file or do anything:
>>
>> setgid executable that reports euid and egid:
>>
>> $ cat poof.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> printf("%d:%d\n", geteuid(), getegid());
>> return 0;
>> }
>> $ make poof
>> cc poof.c -o poof
>> $ sudo chgrp root poof && sudo chmod g+s poof
>> $ ls -la poof
>> -rwxr-s--- 1 keescook root 8658 Nov 3 10:14 poof
>> $ ./poof
>> 149786:0
>>
>> I am not a member of the 0 group:
>>
>> $ id
>> uid=149786(keescook) gid=5000(eng)
>> groups=5000(eng),4(adm),20(dialout),21(fax),24(cdrom),25(floppy),26(tape),27(sudo),30(dip),44(video),46(plugdev),106(fuse),110(lpadmin),124(sambashare),129(pkcs11),133(libvirtd),999(logindev)
>>
>> Now I mmap the file, and rewrite it (here I change the format string
>> from a : separator to a -, but we just just as easily injected code):
>>
>> $ cat mod.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <sys/stat.h>
>> #include <fcntl.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> int fd;
>> struct stat info;
>> unsigned char *ptr;
>> off_t i;
>>
>> fd = open("poof", O_RDWR);
>> fstat(fd, &info);
>> ptr = mmap(NULL, info.st_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
>> close(fd);
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < info.st_size; i++) {
>> if (0 == strncmp(ptr + i, "%d:%d", 5)) {
>> ptr[i + 2] = '-';
>> }
>> }
>> munmap(ptr, info.st_size);
>>
>> system("./poof");
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> $ make mod
>> cc mod.c -o mod
>> $ ./mod
>> 149786-0
>> $ ls -la poof
>> -rwxr-s--- 1 keescook root 8658 Nov 3 10:17 poof
>>
>> So, I don't think this patch actually makes anything safer, though
>> there might be a namespace mapping element I've not understood.
>
> Thank you for that beautiful demonstration!
You're welcome. It was a fun diversion. Weirdly, it's only possible
via mmap. Using "write" does kill the set-gid bit. I haven't looked at
why.
Al or anyone else, is there a meaningful distinction here? Should the
mmap MAP_SHARED-write trigger the loss of the set-gid bit too? While
holding the file open with either open or mmap, I get a Text-in-use
error, so I would kind of expect the same behavior between either
close() and munmap(). I wonder if this is a bug, and if so, then your
link patch is indeed useful again. :)
> I agree. I was unaware that sgid-executables on foreign groups were already
> considered as insecure, as the documentation states
> "As a security measure, depending on the filesystem, the set-user-ID
> and set-group-ID execution bits may be turned off if a file is written.
> (On Linux this occurs if the writing process does not have the
> CAP_FSETID capability.)" [1] -- I blindly assumed that this would be the
> case for most filesystems and incorrectly derived that sgid with foreign
> groups are a supported scenario. As you demonstrated, they are not, and
> thus this patch and the sgid-issue discussed are irrelevant, as the
> scenario is unsafe by design and not by error.
>
> The only question remaining is whether the documentation should be
> re-worded to prevent other people from doing the same mistake and assuming
> the scenario would be supported.
>
> However, I'm unsure how to word it properly; my best guess would be
> "The set-user-ID and set-group-ID execution bits may be turned off if a
> file is written. (On Linux, this is guaranteed to only happen if the
> writing process does not have the CAP_FSETID capability. You should not
> rely on this behavior as a security measure: any user having write access
> to or owning the file should be considered as able to impersonate the
> file's owner/group-owner)"
That wording seems good to me. Adding Michael for his thoughts.
-Kees
>
> - Dirk
>
>
> Reference:
> [1] <http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/chmod.2.html>
>
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>> >
>> > To prevent that, the condition would need to be changed to something like
>> > inode_group_or_capable, resembling inode_owner_or_capable, but checking
>> > that the caller is in the group the inode belongs to or has some
>> > capability (for consistency with former behaviour, CAP_FOWNER? for
>> > consistency with the documentation, CAP_FSETID?). However, this would
>> > change userland behaviour outside of userns. Thus my main question:
>> > Is the scenario above bad enough to change userland behaviour?
>> >
>> > I'd apprechiate your comments.
>> >
>> > - Dirk
>> >
>> >
>> > Diffstat:
>> > fs/namei.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
>> > index 29fc6a6..9c6c2e2 100644
>> > --- a/fs/namei.c
>> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
>> > @@ -913,18 +913,19 @@ static inline int may_follow_link(struct nameidata *nd)
>> > }
>> >
>> > /**
>> > - * safe_hardlink_source - Check for safe hardlink conditions
>> > + * safe_hardlink_source_uid - Check for safe hardlink conditions not dependent
>> > + * on the inode's group. These conditions may be overridden by inode ownership
>> > + * or CAP_FOWNER with respect to the inode's uid
>> > * @inode: the source inode to hardlink from
>> > *
>> > * Return false if at least one of the following conditions:
>> > * - inode is not a regular file
>> > * - inode is setuid
>> > - * - inode is setgid and group-exec
>> > * - access failure for read and write
>> > *
>> > * Otherwise returns true.
>> > */
>> > -static bool safe_hardlink_source(struct inode *inode)
>> > +static bool safe_hardlink_source_uid(struct inode *inode)
>> > {
>> > umode_t mode = inode->i_mode;
>> >
>> > @@ -936,10 +937,6 @@ static bool safe_hardlink_source(struct inode *inode)
>> > if (mode & S_ISUID)
>> > return false;
>> >
>> > - /* Executable setgid files should not get pinned to the filesystem. */
>> > - if ((mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP))
>> > - return false;
>> > -
>> > /* Hardlinking to unreadable or unwritable sources is dangerous. */
>> > if (inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ | MAY_WRITE))
>> > return false;
>> > @@ -948,30 +945,62 @@ static bool safe_hardlink_source(struct inode *inode)
>> > }
>> >
>> > /**
>> > + * safe_hardlink_source_gid - Check for safe hardlink conditions dependent
>> > + * on the inode's group. These conditions may be overridden by inode ownership
>> > + * or CAP_FOWNER with respect to the inode's gid
>> > + * @inode: the source inode to hardlink from
>> > + *
>> > + * Return false if inode is setgid and group-exec
>> > + *
>> > + * Otherwise returns true.
>> > + */
>> > +static bool safe_hardlink_source_gid(struct inode *inode)
>> > +{
>> > + umode_t mode = inode->i_mode;
>> > +
>> > + /* Executable setgid files should not get pinned to the filesystem. */
>> > + if ((mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP))
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + return true;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +/**
>> > * may_linkat - Check permissions for creating a hardlink
>> > * @link: the source to hardlink from
>> > *
>> > * Block hardlink when all of:
>> > * - sysctl_protected_hardlinks enabled
>> > * - fsuid does not match inode
>> > - * - hardlink source is unsafe (see safe_hardlink_source() above)
>> > + * - hardlink source is unsafe (see safe_hardlink_source_*() above)
>> > * - not CAP_FOWNER in a namespace with the inode owner uid mapped
>> > + * (and inode gid mapped, if hardlink conditions depending on the inode's
>> > + * group are not satisfied)
>> > *
>> > * Returns 0 if successful, -ve on error.
>> > */
>> > static int may_linkat(struct path *link)
>> > {
>> > struct inode *inode;
>> > + struct user_namespace *ns;
>> > + bool owner;
>> > + bool safe_uid;
>> > + bool safe_gid;
>> >
>> > if (!sysctl_protected_hardlinks)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > inode = link->dentry->d_inode;
>> > + ns = current_user_ns();
>> >
>> > /* Source inode owner (or CAP_FOWNER) can hardlink all they like,
>> > * otherwise, it must be a safe source.
>> > */
>> > - if (inode_owner_or_capable(inode) || safe_hardlink_source(inode))
>> > + owner = inode_owner_or_capable(inode);
>> > + safe_uid = safe_hardlink_source_uid(inode) || owner;
>> > + safe_gid = safe_hardlink_source_gid(inode) ||
>> > + (owner && kgid_has_mapping(ns, inode->i_gid));
>> > + if (safe_uid && safe_gid)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > audit_log_link_denied("linkat", link);
>> > --
>> > 2.1.4
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
