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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CANq1E4QWMw2oLakm-YAdbCsCNHrgfU=66U5Ox-tHzDroFN6avA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:03:39 +0200
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	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

Hi

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> wrote:
>> I think it's safe to assume that any object you create is never
>> world-accessible. So the worst you can get is 0600.
>
> Can you explain what you mean?  I think that it's completely *unsafe*
> to make this assumption unless you actually take some explicit action
> to make sure it's correct.

Which kernel-interface creates world-writable objects if a reasonable
umask like 022 is set?

>> 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..)
>
> Incorrect.  That is exactly what my patch changes.

Are you sure? Note I wrote /proc/$sender/fd/ not /proc/$receiver/fd/.
The lookup on /proc/$sender/fd/ is done with the file of the _sender_,
which obviously is writable.

Thanks
David
--
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/