linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O

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: <CALCETrXDq_k+7w0RXJMpPv36w_Jf+3rJiihfMxS=TFo8rq95ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:32:34 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Eric Rannaud <e@...ocritical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:04:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> Oh, so you don't actually need any file contents at all?
>>>
>>> If that is actually a real usage, then maybe we should just say that
>>> "O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY" is fine, and remove the check that it has to be
>>> writable.
>>
>> Wasn't this disallowed to prevent problems on old kernels that don't use
>> O_TMPFILE?  In that case we'd ignore the flag and would just get a file
>> handle for the directory instead.
>
> Yes, that was the idea at first, as discussed at
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/76273, in commit
> bb458c644. But soon after that, O_WRONLY was allowed (ba57ea64cb1),
> and O_RDWR was removed from O_TMPFILE. Now only remain the explicit
> checks in build_open_flags() that Linus mentioned.
>
> If we allow
>     fd = open("/tmp", O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY, 0600)
> it would be seen by an old kernel as
>     fd = open("/tmp", O_DIRECTORY|O_RDONLY, 0600)
> which will succeed.
>
> But unlike the other cases the creative definition of O_TMPFILE was
> meant to prevent, this does not create a security risk for anyone
> implementing a secure tmpfile, as they would be asking for a writable
> fd.

I have no idea whether it's a security risk, but it's a serious "wtf?!?" risk.

>
> To implement an atomic open() with O_TMPFILE+flink, if neither
> O_WRONLY nor O_RDWR is in flags, you would have to manually check with
> fstat that fd is indeed a regular file and not a directory. At least
> if you need to run on old kernels.
>
> If such a changes goes in, the man page for open(2) should talk about
> what happens on old kernels (it already has an explanation for the
> writable case).

With my occasional-API-reviewer hat on, NAK NAK NAK.  This is even
more insane than the rest of the O_TMPFILE interface.  If you want to
support this kind of use case (which seems entirely reasonable to me),
then just add a syscall, please.

Also, you can, mostly, downgrade from O_RDWR to O_RDONLY.  We could
easily add a way to downgrade all the way, I think.

--Andy

-- 
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/