linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] namespace updates for v3.17-rc1

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:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:17:30 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kenton@...dstorm.io
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] namespace updates for v3.17-rc1

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:

> On 08/05/2014 05:57 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Sorry for catching this late.  I think this fix is likely to
> unnecessarily break valid userspace due to an odd interaction.

The code is correct and safe (no security issues), but yes a blind
remount might hit a snag.

If you can find a userspace application that matters I might care
that a security fix breaks it.

I think you have made a point that several more filesystems might
be ok to not set nodev on (because we can not do anything to create
device nodes on those filesystems).  I personally would prefer the much
more paranoid approach of only allowing device nodes on a unprivileged
mount if we have audited all of the code paths and know it is safe
for device nodes to appear there.

I don't actually think anyone cares ad remounts of filesystems like
tmpfs, mqueue, sysfs, proc, ramfs are all quite rare.  Blind remounts
are even rare.  The normal userspace utilities look at the appropriate
version of /proc/mounts on remount.

These are not filesystems that a blind remount will likely be applied
to.

Furthermore there is work underway to prepare patches to allow
"mount --bind -ro" to work as expected.  That will further reduce
the pressure from blind remounts.

If there is an actual regression of actual code I am happy to deal
with it.  But having the MNT_NODEV on those mounts has been the case
for a long time now and is not new (no regression).  This change just
closed the security hole that allowed nodev to be removed.  And that
security hole we need to have fixed.

Eric

--
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/