On 06/19/2012 11:13 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Wanlong Gao (gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> On 06/19/2012 10:24 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: >>> Quoting Wanlong Gao (gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >>>> On 03/29/2012 05:55 PM, tip-bot for Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> Commit-ID: bdbb776f882f5ad431aa1e694c69c1c3d6a4a5b8 >>>>> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/bdbb776f882f5ad431aa1e694c69c1c3d6a4a5b8 >>>>> Author: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> AuthorDate: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:12:53 -0700 >>>>> Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> CommitDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:37:17 +0200 >>>>> >>>>> futex: Do not leak robust list to unprivileged process >>>>> >>>>> It was possible to extract the robust list head address from a setuid >>>>> process if it had used set_robust_list(), allowing an ASLR info leak. This >>>>> changes the permission checks to be the same as those used for similar >>>>> info that comes out of /proc. >>>>> >>>>> Running a setuid program that uses robust futexes would have had: >>>>> cred->euid != pcred->euid >>>>> cred->euid == pcred->uid >>>>> so the old permissions check would allow it. I'm not aware of any setuid >>>>> programs that use robust futexes, so this is just a preventative measure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this change prevents the unprivileged process. >>>> Please refer to LTP test, recently I saw that this change broke >>>> the following test. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/get_robust_list/get_robust_list01.c#L155 >>>> if (seteuid(1) == -1) >>>> tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, cleanup, "seteuid(1) failed"); >>>> >>>> TEST(retval = syscall(__NR_get_robust_list, 1, >>>> (struct robust_list_head *)&head, >>>> &len_ptr)); >>>> >>>> We set the euid to an unprivileged user, and expect to FAIL with EPERM, >>>> without this patch, it FAIL as we expected, but with it, this call succeed. >>> >>> This relates to a question I asked - I believe in this thread, maybe in >>> another thread - about ptrace_may_access. That code goes back further than >>> our git history, and for so long has used current->uid and ->gid, not >>> euid and gid, for permission checks. I asked if that's what we really >>> want, but at the same am not sure we want to change something that's >>> been like that for so long. >>> >>> But that's why it succeeded - you changed your euid, not your uid. >> >> Yeah, I known what I'm doing. > > Didn't mean to offend :) Sorry for my poor words, I didn't mean that, either. ;) > >> I just wonder which is the right thing. >> Should we check euid or uid ? You mean that checking uid instead of >> checking euid for a long time, right? > > Yup, and I agree it seems wrong. Are there any other places where also switch checking uid instead of euid ? In this place, anyway, this syscall is already marked as deprecated. Thanks, Wanlong Gao > > -serge > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html