linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 24/32] vfs: syscall: Add fsopen() to prepare for superblock creation [ver #9]

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, 12 Jul 2018 08:50:46 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/32] vfs: syscall: Add fsopen() to prepare for
 superblock creation [ver #9]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:54 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I think we *have* to open the source files/devices with the creds of whoever
> called fsopen() or fspick() - that way you can't upgrade your privs by passing
> your context fd to a suid program.  To enforce this, I think it's simplest for
> fscontext_write() to call override_creds() right after taking the uapi_mutex
> and then call revert_creds() right before dropping the mutex.

No.

Don't play games with override_creds. It's wrong.

You have to use file->f_creds - no games, no garbage.

But "write()" simply is *NOT* a good "command" interface. If you want
to send a command, use an ioctl or a system call.

Because it's not just about credentials. It's not just about fooling a
suid app into writing an error message to a descriptor you wrote. It's
also about things like "splice()", which can write to your target
using a kernel buffer, and thus trick you into doing a command while
we have the context set to kernel addresses.

Are we trying to get away from that issue? Yes. But it's just another
example of why "write()" IS NOT TO BE USED FOR COMMANDS.

Only use write() for data.

That's final. We're not adding yet another clueless fuck-up of an
interface just because people cannot understand this very simple rule:
"write()" is for data, not for commands.

No more excuses.

                 Linus