[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2E51520E-EC73-457F-809A-4749ED9A3C97@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 15:27:43 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2
On Jun 09, 2007, at 13:24:29, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:08:59AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>> - - there are two interface to use: open + fcntl. This is racy.
>> And don't tell me this doesn't matter.
> Racy with respect to what? Return-to-libc exploits from another
> thread?
How about racy with respect to normal open or fork+exec from another
thread? Specifically there are cases where libc or other libraries
want to create a backend thread dealing with file descriptors in
response to the program's straightforward calls into that library
(Examples include using syslets or event-based polling threads).
SCENARIO 1:
Program Thread: Library Thread:
fd = socket(AF_*, SOCK_*, 0);
fork();
int x = FD_CLOEXEC;
fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, &x);
New Process:
setgroups(...);
seteuid(...);
exec(....);
Whoops!!! Suddenly the user process executed by the (theoretically)
single-threaded program got a handle to a netlink socket affecting
some system resource!!!
SCENARIO 2:
Program Thread: Async libc getpwent()-cache syslet
close(0);
fd = open("/etc/shadow");
open("/dev/null");
code_which_insecurely_reads_from_stdin();
Here we were trying to safely call into code which reads from stdin
and shouldn't be given privileged data, but the syslet makes the
common paradigm 'close(0); open("/dev/null");' horribly insecure.
If you extend all the FD syscalls to all take a "flags" parameter and
add the appropriate flags, then you can pass O_CLOEXEC|O_RANDFD to
whatever syscall you are using and both problems vanish.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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