Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:43:34 -0700
From:	Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on credential switching

Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:25:35 -0700
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:05:16 -0700
>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:23:24 -0700
>> > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi various people who care about user-space NFS servers and/or
>> > >> security-relevant APIs.
>> > >>
>> > >> I propose the following set of new syscalls:
>> > >>
>> > >> int credfd_create(unsigned int flags): returns a new credfd that
>> > >> corresponds to current's creds.
>> > >>
>> > >> int credfd_activate(int fd, unsigned int flags): Change current's
>> > >> creds to match the creds stored in fd.  To be clear, this changes
>> > >> both the "subjective" and "objective" (aka real_cred and cred)
>> > >> because there aren't any real semantics for what happens when
>> > >> userspace code runs with real_cred != cred.
>> > >>
>> > >> Rules:
>> > >>
>> > >>  - credfd_activate fails (-EINVAL) if fd is not a credfd.
>> > >>  - credfd_activate fails (-EPERM) if the fd's userns doesn't
>> > >> match current's userns.  credfd_activate is not intended to be a
>> > >> substitute for setns.
>> > >>  - credfd_activate will fail (-EPERM) if LSM does not allow the
>> > >> switch.  This probably needs to be a new selinux action --
>> > >> dyntransition is too restrictive.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Optional:
>> > >>  - credfd_create always sets cloexec, because the alternative is
>> > >> silly.
>> > >>  - credfd_activate fails (-EINVAL) if dumpable.  This is because
>> > >> we don't want a privileged daemon to be ptraced while
>> > >> impersonating someone else.
>> > >>  - optional: both credfd_create and credfd_activate fail if
>> > >> !ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) or perhaps !capable(CAP_SETUID).
>> > >>
>> > >> The first question: does this solve Ganesha's problem?
>> > >>
>> > >> The second question: is this safe?  I can see two major concerns.
>> > >> The bigger concern is that having these syscalls available will
>> > >> allow users to exploit things that were previously secure.  For
>> > >> example, maybe some configuration assumes that a task running as
>> > >> uid==1 can't switch to uid==2, even with uid 2's consent.
>> > >> Similar issues happen with capabilities.  If CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not
>> > >> required, then this is no longer really true.
>> > >>
>> > >> Alternatively, something running as uid == 0 with heavy
>> > >> capability restrictions in a mount namespace (but not a uid
>> > >> namespace) could pass a credfd out of the namespace.  This could
>> > >> break things like Docker pretty badly.  CAP_SYS_ADMIN guards
>> > >> against this to some extent.  But I think that Docker is already
>> > >> totally screwed if a Docker root task can receive an O_DIRECTORY
>> > >> or O_PATH fd out of the container, so it's not entirely clear
>> > >> that the situation is any worse, even without requiring
>> > >> CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>> > >>
>> > >> The second concern is that it may be difficult to use this
>> > >> correctly. There's a reason that real_cred and cred exist, but
>> > >> it's not really well set up for being used.
>> > >>
>> > >> As a simple way to stay safe, Ganesha could only use credfds that
>> > >> have real_uid == 0.
>> > >>
>> > >> --Andy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I still don't quite grok why having this special credfd_create
>> > > call buys you anything over simply doing what Al had originally
>> > > suggested -- switch creds using all of the different syscalls and
>> > > then simply caching that in a "normal" fd:
>> > >
>> > >     fd = open("/dev/null", O_PATH...);
>> > >
>> > > ...it seems to me that the credfd_activate call will still need to
>> > > do the same permission checking that all of the individual
>> > > set*id() calls require (and all of the other stuff like changing
>> > > selinux contexts, etc).
>> > >
>> > > IOW, this fd is just a "handle" for passing around a struct cred,
>> > > but I don't see why having access to that handle would allow you
>> > > to do something you couldn't already do anyway.
>> > >
>> > > Am I missing something obvious here?
>> > 
>> > Not really.  I think I didn't adequately explain a piece of this.
>> > 
>> > I think that what you're suggesting is for an fd to encode a set of
>> > credentials but not to grant permission to use those credentials.
>> > So switch_creds(fd) is more or less the same thing as
>> > switch_creds(ruid, euid, suid, rgid, egid, sgid, groups, mac
>> > label, ...).  switch_creds needs to verify that the caller can
>> > dyntransition to the label, set all the ids, etc., but it avoids
>> > allocating anything and running RCU callbacks.
>> > 
>> > The trouble with this is that the verification needed is complicated
>> > and expensive.  And I think that my proposal is potentially more
>> > useful.
>> > 
>> 
>> Is it really though? My understanding of the problem was that it was
>> the syscall (context switching) overhead + having to do a bunch of RCU
>> critical stuff that was the problem. If we can do all of this in the
>> context of a single RCU critical section, isn't that still a win?
>> 
>> As to the complicated part...maybe but it doesn't seem like it would
>> have to be. We could simply return -EINVAL or something if the old
>> struct cred doesn't have fields that match the ones we're replacing
>> and that we don't expect to see changed.
>> 
>> > A credfd is like a struct cred, but possession of a credfd carries
>> > the permission to use those credentials.  So, for example,
>> > credfd_activate to switch to a given uid might work even if
>> > setresuid to that uid would be disallowed.  But, for this to be
>> > secure, the act of giving someone a credfd needs to be explicit.
>> > Programs implicitly send other programs their credentials by means
>> > of f_cred all the time, and they don't expect to allow the receiver
>> > to impersonate them.
>> > 
>> 
>> Eek!
>> 
>> Passing around permission to use the credential in conjunction with
>> the credentials themselves sounds a lot more dangerous to me.
>> 
>> My preference would be that we don't add anything that potentially
>> gives you privileges to do something you couldn't do already with
>> existing syscalls. That doesn't seem to be necessary for the intended
>> use case anyway. When it comes to security, I think we need to err on
>> the side of caution than try to shortcut it for performance.
>> 
>> > credfd has other uses.  A file server, for example, could actually
>> > delegate creation of the credfds to a separate process, and that
>> > process could validate that the request is for a credfd that the
>> > file server really should be able to obtain.  This would enable that
>> > process to make sure that the user in question has actually
>> > authenticated itself, so a file server compromise could only attack
>> > users who connect instead of attacking any user on the system.  This
>> > is an argument against requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN to use
>> > credfd_activate.
>> > 
>> > I'm less confident in whether capabilities should be needed to use
>> > credfd_create.
>> > 
>> > Is that clearer and/or more convincing?
>> > 
>> 
>> My worry would be that you could then compromise the process doing
>> this credfd creation and trick it into passing around credentials that
>> aren't what are expected.
>> 
>> Another possibility could some kernel bug allow you to frob the creds
>> that are attached to an existing fd after they've been "vetted" for
>> use.
>> 
>> So yeah, I think I better understand what you're proposing (and thanks
>> for explaining it), but I'm not convinced that it's really a safe
>> idea.
>> 
> 
> I had some time to think about this last night...
> 
> While using a fd to pass around credentials is convenient, the danger
> is that it's pretty opaque. You have a fd that you know has creds
> attached to it, but it's hard to be certain what is going to change.
> 
> Perhaps we can use the flags field for that. So, assuming we have a fd
> with the creds attached, we could do something like:
> 
>     err = switch_creds(fd, SC_FSUID|SC_FSGID|SC_GROUPS);
> 
> ...then the switch_creds syscall could be set up to fail if the new
> credentials had other fields that didn't match those in the current
> task credentials. So if (for instance) the cred->euid were
> different between the two, the above could fail with -EINVAL or
> something.
> 
> Yes, that means that we need to check this stuff on every switch_creds
> call, but I don't think it'll be that expensive.
> 

If creating a credfd populates a bitmap in the same manner (I suspect 
_creating_ credfds might be somewhat less of a hot-path) then it would come 
down to

if (credfd_fields & ~flags) goto unexpected_cred_field;

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists