linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO

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: <CALCETrU29CpcK4dVRD45BGOD7AVEudADiFxOgFgKWkpFzw07eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:19:54 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	jkaluza@...hat.com, lpoetter@...hat.com, kay@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 14:12 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> > On 03/12/2014 01:46 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> >> Implement SO_PEERCGROUP along the lines of SO_PEERCRED. This returns the
>> >> cgroup of first mounted hierarchy of the task. For the case of client,
>> >> it represents the cgroup of client at the time of opening the connection.
>> >> After that client cgroup might change.
>> >
>> > Even if people decide that sending cgroups over a unix socket is a good
>> > idea, this API has my NAK in the strongest possible sense, for whatever
>> > my NAK is worth.
>> >
>> > IMO SO_PEERCRED is a disaster.  Calling send(2) or write(2) should
>> > *never* imply the use of a credential.  A program should always have to
>> > *explicitly* request use of a credential.  What you want is SCM_CGROUP.
>> >
>> > (I've found privilege escalations before based on this observation, and
>> > I suspect I'll find them again.)
>> >
>> >
>> > Note that I think that you really want SCM_SOMETHING_ELSE and not
>> > SCM_CGROUP, but I don't know what the use case is yet.
>>
>> This might not be quite as awful as I thought.  At least you're
>> looking up the cgroup at connection time instead of at send time.
>>
>> OTOH, this is still racy -- the socket could easily outlive the cgroup
>> that created it.
>
> I think you do not understand how this whole problem space works.
>
> The problem is exactly the same as with SO_PEERCRED, so we are taking
> the same proven solution.

You mean the same proven crappy solution?

>
> Connection time is all we do and can care about.

You have not answered why.

>
> Simo.
>
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/