linux-kernel - Re: ioctl CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE is checked in the wrong namespace

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <53601E5B.5050004@1h.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:49:15 +0300
From:	Marian Marinov <mm@...com>
To:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	LXC development mailing-list 
	<lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ioctl CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE is checked in the wrong namespace

On 04/29/2014 09:52 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Theodore Ts'o (tytso@....edu):
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 04:49:14PM +0300, Marian Marinov wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm proposing a fix to this, by replacing the capable(CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE)
>>> check with ns_capable(current_cred()->user_ns, CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE).
>>
>> Um, wouldn't it be better to simply fix the capable() function?
>>
>> /**
>>   * capable - Determine if the current task has a superior capability in effect
>>   * @cap: The capability to be tested for
>>   *
>>   * Return true if the current task has the given superior capability currently
>>   * available for use, false if not.
>>   *
>>   * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
>>   * assumption that it's about to be used.
>>   */
>> bool capable(int cap)
>> {
>> 	return ns_capable(&init_user_ns, cap);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(capable);
>>
>> The documentation states that it is for "the current task", and I
>> can't imagine any use case, where user namespaces are in effect, where
>> using init_user_ns would ever make sense.
>
> the init_user_ns represents the user_ns owning the object, not the
> subject.
>
> The patch by Marian is wrong.  Anyone can do 'clone(CLONE_NEWUSER)',
> setuid(0), execve, and end up satisfying 'ns_capable(current_cred()->userns,
> CAP_SYS_IMMUTABLE)' by definition.
>
> So NACK to that particular patch.  I'm not sure, but IIUC it should be
> safe to check against the userns owning the inode?
>

So what you are proposing is to replace 'ns_capable(current_cred()->userns, CAP_SYS_IMMUTABLE)' with
'inode_capable(inode, CAP_SYS_IMMUTABLE)' ?

I agree that this is more sane.

Marian

>> No?  Otherwise, pretty much every single use of capable() would be
>> broken, not just this once instances in ext4/ioctl.c.
>>
>> 					- Ted
>> _______________________________________________
>> Containers mailing list
>> Containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>

-- 
Marian Marinov
Founder & CEO of 1H Ltd.
Jabber/GTalk: hackman@...ber.org
ICQ: 7556201
Mobile: +359 886 660 270
--
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/

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