linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3a] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK

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]

Message-ID: <52578A4D.2000300@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:19:09 +1100
From:	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	joe@...ches.com
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com,
	eldad@...refinery.com, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
	jkosina@...e.cz, keescook@...omium.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3a] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK

On 11/10/13 15:42, George Spelvin wrote:
> ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>> Sigh.  This is all wrong.  The only correct thing to test is
>> file->f_cred.  Aka the capabilities of the program that opened the
>> file.
>>
>> Which means that the interface to %pK in the case of kptr_restrict is
>> broken as it has no way to be passed the information it needs to make
>> a sensible decision.
> 
> I looked at the code, and pretty painful.  Certainly it's possible to
> include a reference to the file (I was thinking of just the credentials,
> actually) in the seq_file.  But getting that to the vsprintf.c code
> (specifically, the pointer() function) is a PITA.
> 
> I'm willing to accept the currently proposed kludge as a "good enough"
> approximation, as long as we're all agreed that using the credentials
> at open() time would be The Right Thing, and hopefully someone will find
> the round tuitts to implement that in future.
> 
> But in the meantime, "the perfect is the enemey of the good" is worth
> remembering.
> 
> (An alternate implementation I've been thinking about would be to do
> away with %pK, and instead have a "secret_ptr(p, seq->cred)" helper that
> returned p or 0 depending on the credential.)

Yeah, that is probably the best solution. I'll try to put together a
patch series doing this. It will obviously be more involved though, so I
think it is still worth merging the original patch in the interm.

~Ryan



--
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/