linux-kernel - Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

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]

Message-ID: <20070425172012.GA20336@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:20:12 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	serue@...ibm.com, viro@....linux.org.uk, linuxram@...ibm.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com):
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > 
> > Andrew, please skip this patch, for now.
> > 
> > Serge found a problem with the fsuid approach: setfsuid(nonzero) will
> > remove filesystem related capabilities.  So even if root is trying to
> > set the "user=UID" flag on a mount, access to the target (and in case
> > of bind, the source) is checked with user privileges.
> > 
> > Root should be able to set this flag on any mountpoint, _regardless_
> > of permissions.
> > 
> 
> Right, if you're using fsuid != 0, you're not running as root 

Sure, but what I'm not clear on is why, if I've done a
prctl(PR_SET_KEEPCAPS, 1) before the setfsuid, I still lose the
CAP_FS_MASK perms.  I see the special case handling in
cap_task_post_setuid().  I'm sure there was a reason for it, but
this is a piece of the capability implementation I don't understand
right now.

I would send in a patch to make it honor current->keep_capabilities,
but I have a feeling there was a good reason not to do so in the
first place.

> (fsuid is
> the equivalent to euid for the filesystem.)

If it were really the equivalent then I could keep my capabilities :)
after changing it.

> I fail to see how ruid should have *any* impact on mount(2).  That seems
> to be a design flaw.

May be, but just using fsuid at this point stops me from enabling user
mounts under /share if /share is chmod 000 (which it is).

thanks,
-serge
-
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/