[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51412C67.30908@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:48:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Sebastian Krahmer <krahmer@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: CLONE_NEWUSER|CLONE_FS root exploit
On 03/13/2013 11:35 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@...lic.gmane.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seem like we should block (at least) this combination. On 3.9, this
>> exploit works once uidmapping is added.
>>
>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/03/13/10
>
> Yes. That is a bad combination. It let's chroot confuse privileged
> processes.
>
> Now to figure out if this is easier to squash by adding a user_namespace
> to fs_struct or by just forbidding this combination.
It's worth making sure that setns(2) doesn't have similar issues.
Looking through other shared-but-not-a-namespace things, there are:
fs_struct: Buggy as noted.
files_struct: Probably harmless -- SCM_RIGHTS can emulate it
signal_struct: This interacts with the tty code. Is it okay?
sighand_struct: Looks safe. Famous last words.
FWIW, I've been alarmed in the past that struct path (e.g. the root
directory) implies an mnt_namespace (hidden in struct mount), and it's
entirely possible for the root directory's mnt_namespace not to match
nsproxy->mnt_namespace. I'm not sure what the implications are, but
this doesn't seem healthy.
--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