linux-kernel - Re: module loading permissions and request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090812234855.GA12505@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:48:55 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	davem@...emloft.net, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	kees@...ntu.com, morgan@...nel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	dwlash@...hat.com
Subject: Re: module loading permissions and request_module permission
	inconsistencies

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@...hat.com):
> I'd like to hear thoughts on how we currently do permissions handling on
> request_module() and if it really makes sense?  request_module() is the
> function which will do an upcall to try to get modprobe to load a
> specified module into the kernel.  It is called in a lot of places
> around the kernel (~128).  Of those places only three check to see if
> the REQUESTING process has some sort of module loading permissions
> (CAP_SYS_RAWIO.)  Those three are in net/core/dev.c::dev_load() and in
> the IPv4 tcp congestion code in tcp_set_default_congestion_control() and
> tcp_set_congestion_control().  All 125 other calls to request_module()
> appear to be done without any permissions check against the triggering
> process.  The actual loading of a module is done in another thread which
> always has permissions, so that side of things appears to not be an
> issue.
> 
> First question, why does networking do it's own CAP_SYS_MODULE checks?
> (this is VERY old code, pre-git days)  And, does it make sense?  In the
> past this has come up in [1] when /sbin/ip triggered the loading of a
> module to get IPv6 tunnel support.  It's perfectly reasonable
> for /sbin/ip to do this.  But is it reasonable for /sbin/ip to need
> CAP_SYS_MODULE?  CAP_SYS_MODULE says that /sbin/ip has permissions to
> load any arbitrary binary it feels like as a kernel module directly.  Is
> this really what we want?  Should SELinux have to give a hacked /sbin/ip
> permissions to load any arbitrary module?  Recently in [2] we find that
> now bluetoothd needs to be granted permissions to directly load any
> kernel module it pleases, just so it can request the upcall loads bnep.
> The same holds basically true for congestion control hooks.  Note that
> I'm saying we are giving permission for these to load kernel modules
> directly, not just through the upcall.

Right, so taking a more extreme example, the request_module() in
search_binary_handler...  requiring CAP_SYS_MODULE there would mean
you'd have to be privileged to be the first to execute say a
binfmt_misc.

The actual modules are to be protected by protecting /lib/modules
and /sbin/modprobe themselves.  So long as those are properly
protected, the ability to cause a call to __request_module() at most
takes up more memory.

So what you say seems to make sense.

-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/