On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 01:32:02PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:47:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 12:15, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmpf, and frustratingly Ubuntu (and Debian) still builds with
> > > CONFIG_USELIB, even though it was reported[2] to them almost 4 years ago.
>
> For completeness, Fedora hasn't had CONFIG_USELIB for a while now.
>
> > Well, we could just remove the __FMODE_EXEC from uselib.
> >
> > It's kind of wrong anyway.
>
> Yeah.
>
> > So I think just removing __FMODE_EXEC would just do the
> > RightThing(tm), and changes nothing for any sane situation.
>
> Agreed about these:
>
> - fs/fcntl.c is just doing a bitfield sanity check.
>
> - nfs_open_permission_mask(), as you say, is only checking for
> unreadable case.
>
> - fsnotify would also see uselib() as a read, but afaict,
> that's what it would see for an mmap(), so this should
> be functionally safe.
>
> This one, though, I need some more time to examine:
>
> - AppArmor, TOMOYO, and LandLock will see uselib() as an
> open-for-read, so that might still be a problem? As you
> say, it's more of a mmap() call, but that would mean
> adding something a call like security_mmap_file() into
> uselib()...
>
> The issue isn't an insane "support uselib() under AppArmor" case, but
> rather "Can uselib() be used to bypass exec/mmap checks?"
>
> This totally untested patch might give appropriate coverage:
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index d179abb78a1c..0c9265312c8d 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(uselib, const char __user *, library)
> if (IS_ERR(file))
> goto out;
>
> + error = security_mmap_file(file, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_FIXED | MAP_SHARED);
Actually, this should probably match was load_shlib() uses:
PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC,
MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE | MAP_PRIVATE,
--
Kees Cook
