[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV6eMYGsw-AS+ZwLpTfdzbinJT_3or0hN+R=7PKmai4mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:35:33 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.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, 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 v3 3/4] Allow unprivileged CLONE_NEWUTS and CLONE_NEWIPC
with no_new_privs
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> They are normally disallowed because they could be used to subvert
>> setuid programs. But if setuid is disabled, then they are safe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> ---
>> kernel/nsproxy.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/nsproxy.c b/kernel/nsproxy.c
>> index b576f7f..47cf873 100644
>> --- a/kernel/nsproxy.c
>> +++ b/kernel/nsproxy.c
>> @@ -191,7 +191,13 @@ int unshare_nsproxy_namespaces(unsigned long unshare_flags,
>> CLONE_NEWNET)))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> + /* We require either no_new_privs or CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all modes */
>> + if (!current->no_new_privs && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
>> + /* NEWNS and NEWNET always require CAP_SYS_ADMIN. */
>> + if ((unshare_flags & (CLONE_NEWNS | CLONE_NEWNET)) &&
>> + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> return -EPERM;
>>
>> *new_nsp = create_new_namespaces(unshare_flags, current,
>
> While I think it's unlikely that the list handled by
> unshare_nsproxy_namespaces() is going to change, I'd still prefer that
> the logic of this test be reversed so that the nnp-allowed flags are
> listed instead of the CAP_SYS_ADMIN-required ones so that it will
> default to disallowing new flags. It's a little less readable, but
> maybe something like this (untested):
>
> unsigned long handled_mask = (CLONE_NEWNS | CLONE_NEWUTS | CLONE_NEWIPC |
> CLONE_NEWNET);
> unsigned long npp_mask = (CLONE_NEWUTS | CLONE_NEWIPC);
>
> if (!(unshare_flags & handled_mask))
> return 0;
>
> if ( !(current->no_new_privs &&
> !(unshare_flags & (handled_mask ^ npp_mask))) &&
> !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> return -EPERM;
> ...
>
> This also has the side-effect of removing the double-check of
> capable() in some cases.
Agreed -- will fix.
This patch is also missing the corresponding change for clone. I'll add that.
I'm tempted to add CLONE_NEWPID as well (it's _useful_), but there's
an unresolved issue with SCM_CREDENTIALS.
--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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists