linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change boundaries of data, brk and stack

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:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:05:42 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, criu@...nvz.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] prctl: reduce permissions to change boundaries of data, brk and stack

Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org> writes:

> Currently this operation requires the global CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> It's required, because a task can exceed limits (RLIMIT_DATA,
> RLIMIT_STACK).
>
> So let's allow task to change these parameters if a proper limit is
> unlimited.
>
> When we restore a task we need to set up text, data and data heap sizes
> from userspace to the values a task had at checkpoint time.
>
> Currently we can not restore these parameters, if a task lives in
> a non-root user name space, because it has no capabilities in the
> parent namespace.

My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.

For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
verify that you are below the appropriate rlimit at all times and no
CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check is needed.  You only need CAP_SYS_RESOURCE
to exceed your per process limits.

All you have to do is to fix the current code to properly enforce the
limits.  This half-assed code that forgets the permission checks if
rlimit is set to rlimit_inifinity is wrong.

Eric


> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
> Cc: Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sys.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> index c0a58be..939370c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -1701,8 +1701,23 @@ static int prctl_set_mm(int opt, unsigned long addr,
>  	if (arg5 || (arg4 && opt != PR_SET_MM_AUXV))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> -		return -EPERM;
> +	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> +		switch (opt) {
> +		case PR_SET_MM_START_DATA:
> +		case PR_SET_MM_END_DATA:
> +		case PR_SET_MM_START_BRK:
> +		case PR_SET_MM_BRK:
> +			if (rlim < RLIM_INFINITY)
> +				return -EPERM;
> +			break;
> +		case PR_SET_MM_START_STACK:
> +			if (rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) < RLIM_INFINITY)
> +				return -EPERM;
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			return -EPERM;
> +		}
> +	}
>  
>  	if (opt == PR_SET_MM_EXE_FILE)
>  		return prctl_set_mm_exe_file(mm, (unsigned int)addr);
--
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/