linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/2] fs,proc: Respect FMODE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140422144039.GB23716@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:40:39 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] fs,proc: Respect FMODE_WRITE when opening
 /proc/pid/fd/N

On Tue 2014-04-22 16:17:57, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > Anyone who opens a file read-only and sends it over SCM_RIGHTS is
> > likely broken.  They may think that it's read-only, so it can't be
> > written, but this /proc/fd issue means that whoever receives it can
> > reopen it.
> >
> > It's true that, if the inode doesn't allow the recipient write access,
> > then the recipient can't reopen, but there are lots of cases where the
> > inode can't reliably be expected not to allow write.  For example, the
> > inode could be unlinked, an O_TMPFILE file, a memfd handle, or in a
> > non-world-executable directory, and the file mode should be respected.
> 
> I think it's safe to assume that any object you create is never
> world-accessible. So the worst you can get is 0600. So if we now take
> your example, your patch doesn't fix the problem at all. Imagine two
> processes, $sender and $receiver. If the receiver runs as a different
> user as the sender, it cannot open /proc/self/fd/ writable due to
> 0600. So the only problematic case is if both run as the same user.
> However, in that case, the receiver can _always_ access
> /proc/$sender/fd/ and thus still gain writable access to the object,
> even if its own fd is read-only and your patch was applied. (ignoring
> the fact that they can kill() and ptrace each other..)
> 
> Protecting world-accessible objects by hiding them is imho wrong. And
> protecting users against themselves is even worse.

See the link for example where this matters in multi-user setting.

Agreed, protecting file using its directory's permissions is not
practice to be recommended, but we should not be breaking it. (And we
are not breaking it if /proc is not mounted...)

Enforcing read-only on file descriptor is IMO useful, and being able
to work around it using /proc/self/fd is a security problem...

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/