[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140327004225.GA20247@sergelap>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:42:25 -0500
From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jim Lieb <jlieb@...asas.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...onical.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bfields@...hat.com, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on credential switching
Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@...capital.net):
> Hi various people who care about user-space NFS servers and/or
> security-relevant APIs.
>
> I propose the following set of new syscalls:
>
> int credfd_create(unsigned int flags): returns a new credfd that
> corresponds to current's creds.
>
> int credfd_activate(int fd, unsigned int flags): Change current's
> creds to match the creds stored in fd. To be clear, this changes both
> the "subjective" and "objective" (aka real_cred and cred) because
> there aren't any real semantics for what happens when userspace code
> runs with real_cred != cred.
Is there a URL where I can find the motivation, and why the existing
features can't be used?
My guess would be, uid 100000 is root in a container, and you want
him to be able to send a request to a root daemon on the host, on
behalf of uid 100005 in the container, over which 100000 has
privilege. (Which is sort of what we need for the cgmanager proxy;
there we do it by checking checking that 100000 is mapped to 0 in
the requestor's uid_map, and that 100005 is mapped in that uid_map)
The credfd would be useful there, especially combined with a
credfd_access(credfd, fd, perms) call.
But I'd like to hear exactly how nfs and ganesha would use these.
What all would be assiciated with the credfd? Everything that is
in the kernel cred?
> Rules:
>
> - credfd_activate fails (-EINVAL) if fd is not a credfd.
> - credfd_activate fails (-EPERM) if the fd's userns doesn't match
> current's userns. credfd_activate is not intended to be a substitute
> for setns.
> - credfd_activate will fail (-EPERM) if LSM does not allow the
> switch. This probably needs to be a new selinux action --
> dyntransition is too restrictive.
>
>
> Optional:
> - credfd_create always sets cloexec, because the alternative is silly.
> - credfd_activate fails (-EINVAL) if dumpable. This is because we
> don't want a privileged daemon to be ptraced while impersonating
> someone else.
> - optional: both credfd_create and credfd_activate fail if
> !ns_capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) or perhaps !capable(CAP_SETUID).
>
> The first question: does this solve Ganesha's problem?
>
> The second question: is this safe? I can see two major concerns. The
> bigger concern is that having these syscalls available will allow
> users to exploit things that were previously secure. For example,
> maybe some configuration assumes that a task running as uid==1 can't
> switch to uid==2, even with uid 2's consent. Similar issues happen
> with capabilities. If CAP_SYS_ADMIN is not required, then this is no
> longer really true.
>
> Alternatively, something running as uid == 0 with heavy capability
> restrictions in a mount namespace (but not a uid namespace) could pass
> a credfd out of the namespace. This could break things like Docker
> pretty badly. CAP_SYS_ADMIN guards against this to some extent. But
> I think that Docker is already totally screwed if a Docker root task
> can receive an O_DIRECTORY or O_PATH fd out of the container, so it's
> not entirely clear that the situation is any worse, even without
> requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>
> The second concern is that it may be difficult to use this correctly.
> There's a reason that real_cred and cred exist, but it's not really
> well set up for being used.
>
> As a simple way to stay safe, Ganesha could only use credfds that have
> real_uid == 0.
>
> --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