linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:14:22 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	ssorce@...hat.com, jkaluza@...hat.com, lpoetter@...hat.com,
	kay@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:12:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > On 03/12/2014 01:46 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> Implement SO_PEERCGROUP along the lines of SO_PEERCRED. This returns the
> >> cgroup of first mounted hierarchy of the task. For the case of client,
> >> it represents the cgroup of client at the time of opening the connection.
> >> After that client cgroup might change.
> >
> > Even if people decide that sending cgroups over a unix socket is a good
> > idea, this API has my NAK in the strongest possible sense, for whatever
> > my NAK is worth.
> >
> > IMO SO_PEERCRED is a disaster.  Calling send(2) or write(2) should
> > *never* imply the use of a credential.  A program should always have to
> > *explicitly* request use of a credential.  What you want is SCM_CGROUP.
> >
> > (I've found privilege escalations before based on this observation, and
> > I suspect I'll find them again.)
> >
> >
> > Note that I think that you really want SCM_SOMETHING_ELSE and not
> > SCM_CGROUP, but I don't know what the use case is yet.
> 
> This might not be quite as awful as I thought.  At least you're
> looking up the cgroup at connection time instead of at send time.
> 
> OTOH, this is still racy -- the socket could easily outlive the cgroup
> that created it.

That's a good point. What guarantees that previous cgroup was not
reassigned to a different container.

What if a process A opens the connection with sssd. Process A passes the
file descriptor to a different process B in a differnt container.
Process A exits. Container gets removed from system and new one gets
launched which uses same cgroup as old one. Now process B sends a new
request and SSSD will serve it based on policy of newly launched
container.

This sounds very similar to pid race where socket/connection will outlive
the pid.

Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/