linux-kernel - Re: [CFT][PATCH 2/7] userns: Don't allow setgroups until a gid mapping has been setablished

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:47:50 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Kenton Varda <kenton@...dstorm.io>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [CFT][PATCH 2/7] userns: Don't allow setgroups until a gid
 mapping has been setablished

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> writes:
>
>> Am 08.12.2014 um 23:25 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>>> Am 08.12.2014 um 23:07 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
>>>>>
>>>>> setgroups is unique in not needing a valid mapping before it can be called,
>>>>> in the case of setgroups(0, NULL) which drops all supplemental groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> The design of the user namespace assumes that CAP_SETGID can not actually
>>>>> be used until a gid mapping is established.  Therefore add a helper function
>>>>> to see if the user namespace gid mapping has been established and call
>>>>> that function in the setgroups permission check.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is part of the fix for CVE-2014-8989, being able to drop groups
>>>>> without privilege using user namespaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  include/linux/user_namespace.h | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>  kernel/groups.c                | 7 ++++++-
>>>>>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/user_namespace.h b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>>>> index e95372654f09..41cc26e5a350 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/user_namespace.h
>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,15 @@ struct user_namespace {
>>>>>
>>>>>  extern struct user_namespace init_user_ns;
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool userns_gid_mappings_established(const struct user_namespace *ns)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +     bool established;
>>>>> +     smp_mb__before_atomic();
>>>>> +     established = ACCESS_ONCE(ns->gid_map.nr_extents) != 0;
>>>>> +     smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>>>> +     return established;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this is a stupid question, but why do we need all this magic
>>>> around established =  ... ?
>>>> The purpose of this code is to check whether ns->gid_map.nr_extents != 0
>>>> in a lock-free manner?
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my other comment -- the ordering will matter at the end of the series.
>>
>> But ns->gid_map.nr_extents is not atomic, it is a plain u32.
>> This confuses me.
>
> Read Documentation/atomic_ops.txt a plain u32 is atomic by definiton.
>

I still don't understand why the helper changed to smp_mb__before_atomic.

> Which is a little bit convoluted.  However that is part of the of the
> gid mapping path and I optimized that as far as I humanly could so that
> calls like stat don't take a noticable slow donw.
>
> On this path we don't particularly care except that I am using an the
> existing data structure.

As an example, arm64 defines both smp_mb__before_atomic and
smp_mb__after_atomic as smp_mb(), which is heavier then smp_rmb(), and
there are two of them.  So I still like the explicit smp_rmb() better.

--Andy

>
> Eric
>



-- 
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/