linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from granting privs

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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:02:51 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com, djm@...drot.org,
	segoon@...nwall.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	scarybeasts@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, luto@....edu, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, khilman@...com, borislav.petkov@....com,
	amwang@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, gregkh@...e.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
	daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
	mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PR_{GET,SET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prevent execve from
 granting privs

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> With this set, a lot of dangerous operations (chroot, unshare, etc)
>> become a lot less dangerous because there is no possibility of
>> subverting privileged binaries.
>>
>> This patch completely breaks apparmor.  Someone who understands (and
>> uses) apparmor should fix it or at least give me a hint.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> [....]
>> diff --git a/security/apparmor/domain.c b/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> index c1e18ba..7f480b7 100644
>> --- a/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> +++ b/security/apparmor/domain.c
>> @@ -360,6 +360,9 @@ int apparmor_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>>        if (bprm->cred_prepared)
>>                return 0;
>>
>> +       /* XXX: someone who understands apparmor needs to fix this. */
>> +       BUG_ON(bprm->unsafe & LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS);
>> +
>>        cxt = bprm->cred->security;
>>        BUG_ON(!cxt);
>>
>
> Since apparmor_bprm_set_creds() calls cap_bprm_set_creds() already[1],
> I think AppArmor needs no changes at all, but John will know better.
> :)

I think that AppArmor determines what a program is allowed to do by
looking at the path of the executable.  We don't want newly-executed
programs to gain permissions because they're a different executable
when we're in no_new_privs mode, so (if I'm right) something different
needs to happen.

--Andy
--
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/