linux-kernel - Re: Chroot bug

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: <46FA5A85.20407@prepere.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:11:33 +0200
From:	Miloslav Semler <majkls@...pere.com>
To:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
CC:	David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	Philipp Marek <philipp@...ek.priv.at>, 7eggert@....de,
	bunk@...tum.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Chroot bug

Kyle Moffett napsal(a):
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 06:27:38, David Newall wrote:
>> Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>> David, please do tell myself and Adrian how "locking down" chroot() 
>>> the way you want will avoid letting root break out through any of 
>>> the above ways?
>>
>> As has been said, there are thousands of ways to break out of a 
>> chroot.  It's just that one of them should not be that chroot lets 
>> you walk out.  I can't explain it clearer than that.  If you don't 
>> see it now you probably never will.
>
> Let me put it this way:  You *CANNOT* enforce chroot() the way you 
> want to without a completely unacceptable performance penalty.  Let's 
> start with the simplest example of:
>
> fd = open("/", O_DIRECTORY);
> chroot("/foo");
> fchdir(fd);
> chroot(".");
>
> If you had ever actually looked at the Linux VFS, it is completely 
> *impossible* to tell whether "fd" at the time of the chroot is inside 
> or outside of "/foo" without tracking an enormous amount of extra state.
so there *is* solution. It is possible. I solved it. I have patch and it 
is working. So if you find some way how to break it I woud glad if you 
tell me it.
> Even then, any such determination may not be valid since an FD may be 
> opened to an inode which is hardlinked at multiple locations in the 
> directory tree.  It could also be bind-mounted at multiple locations, 
> or it may not even be mounted at all in this namespace (CDROM that was 
> lazy-unmounted).  That FD may be later passed over an open UNIX-domain 
> socket from another process.  Moreover, arbitrarily closing FDs would 
> break a huge number of programs.  Furthermore, since you can't fix the 
> "trivial" case of 'fchdir()', then there's no point in even 
> *attempting* to fix the "cwd is outside of chroot" problem, although 
> that is basically equivalent in difficulty to fixing the "dir-fd is 
> outside of chroot" problem.
>
> As for the nested-chroot() bit, the root user inside of a chroot is 
> always allowed to chroot().  This is necessary for test-suites for 
> various distro installers, chroot once to enter the installer playpen, 
> installer chroots again to configure the test-installed-system.  Once 
> you allow a second chroot, you're back at the "can't reliably and 
> efficiently track directory sub-tree members" problem.
>
> So if you think it can and should be fixed, then PROVIDE THE CODE.
Miloslav Semler

View attachment "sys_chroot+sys_fchdir.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (3266 bytes)