[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b27b3045071c6016a4c1329fc270a38acf40a423.1269610458.git.luto@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:38:35 -0600
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Add PR_RESTRICT_ME to disable security-sensitive features for a process tree.
This adds a prctl PR_RESTRICT_ME that enables restrictions that cannot be
disabled and are inherited by children. There's a long history of dangerous
patches that add similar restrictions that persist across execve. This is
bad: execve can grant new privileges, and restrictions on exec'd programs
can be used to subvert them.
To avoid this issue, the very first PR_RESTRICT_ME restriction bit is
PR_RESTRICT_EXEC, which simply disables exec.
In the presence of execve_nosecurity, this can be used to shoot oneself in
the foot, but it should not be possible to shoot other people in the foot
with this patch.
Any future PR_RESTRICT_ME bits should not be allowed to be set unless
PR_RESTRICT_EXEC is also set.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
---
fs/compat.c | 5 +++++
fs/exec.c | 5 +++++
include/linux/prctl.h | 6 ++++++
include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++
kernel/fork.c | 2 ++
kernel/sys.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/compat.c b/fs/compat.c
index 585a2d7..a091da6 100644
--- a/fs/compat.c
+++ b/fs/compat.c
@@ -1468,6 +1468,11 @@ int compat_do_execve(char * filename,
bool clear_in_exec;
int retval;
+ if (current->restrict_exec && change_security) {
+ retval = -EPERM;
+ goto out_ret;
+ }
+
retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
if (retval)
goto out_ret;
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 4067b65..37fb5fa 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1350,6 +1350,11 @@ int do_execve(char * filename,
bool clear_in_exec;
int retval;
+ if (current->restrict_exec && change_security) {
+ retval = -EPERM;
+ goto out_ret;
+ }
+
retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
if (retval)
goto out_ret;
diff --git a/include/linux/prctl.h b/include/linux/prctl.h
index a3baeb2..b926055 100644
--- a/include/linux/prctl.h
+++ b/include/linux/prctl.h
@@ -102,4 +102,10 @@
#define PR_MCE_KILL_GET 34
+/* Get/set irrevocable restrictions. */
+#define PR_RESTRICT_ME 35
+# define PR_RESTRICT_EXEC 1
+
+#define PR_GET_RESTRICT 36
+
#endif /* _LINUX_PRCTL_H */
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 2d03069..d1956f7 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1302,6 +1302,8 @@ struct task_struct {
/* Revert to default priority/policy when forking */
unsigned sched_reset_on_fork:1;
+ unsigned restrict_exec:1; /* Process may not call execve. */
+
pid_t pid;
pid_t tgid;
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index f88bd98..8f994e5 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1043,6 +1043,8 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
if (retval < 0)
goto bad_fork_free;
+ p->restrict_exec = current->restrict_exec;
+
/*
* If multiple threads are within copy_process(), then this check
* triggers too late. This doesn't hurt, the check is only there
diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
index 18bde97..3f4aa33 100644
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -1580,6 +1580,35 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
else
error = PR_MCE_KILL_DEFAULT;
break;
+ case PR_RESTRICT_ME:
+ if (arg3 | arg4 | arg5)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* This should become more sophisticated if
+ more restriction flags are added. */
+ if (arg2 == PR_RESTRICT_EXEC)
+ current->restrict_exec = 1;
+ else if (arg2 != 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ case PR_GET_RESTRICT:
+ if (arg2) {
+ unsigned long out2 = 0;
+ if (current->restrict_exec)
+ out2 |= PR_RESTRICT_EXEC;
+ error = put_user(out2,
+ (unsigned long __user *)arg2);
+ }
+
+ /* In case some crazy person wants to add tons
+ of future flags, don't get in their way. */
+ if (arg3 && !error)
+ error = put_user(0, (unsigned long __user *)arg3);
+ if (arg4 && !error)
+ error = put_user(0, (unsigned long __user *)arg4);
+ if (arg5 && !error)
+ error = put_user(0, (unsigned long __user *)arg5);
+ break;
default:
error = -EINVAL;
break;
--
1.6.6.1
--
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