[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150122110210.GA31186@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:02:10 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] procfs: Always expose /proc/<pid>/map_files/ and
make it readable
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 06:45:54PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
> Currently, /proc/<pid>/map_files/ is restricted to CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and
> is only exposed if CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is set. This interface
> is very useful for enumerating the files mapped into a process when
> the more verbose information in /proc/<pid>/maps is not needed.
>
> This patch moves the folder out from behind CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, and
> removes the CAP_SYS_ADMIN restrictions. To avoid exposing files to
> processes for whom they may not be visible, a follow_link() stub is
> added to the inode_operations struct attached to the symlinks that
> prevent them from being followed without CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
> ---
> fs/proc/base.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 3f3d7ae..7d48003 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1632,8 +1632,6 @@ end_instantiate:
> return dir_emit(ctx, name, len, 1, DT_UNKNOWN);
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> -
> /*
> * dname_to_vma_addr - maps a dentry name into two unsigned longs
> * which represent vma start and end addresses.
> @@ -1660,11 +1658,6 @@ static int map_files_d_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags)
> if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
> return -ECHILD;
>
> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> - status = -EPERM;
> - goto out_notask;
> - }
> -
> inode = dentry->d_inode;
> task = get_proc_task(inode);
> if (!task)
> @@ -1753,6 +1746,28 @@ struct map_files_info {
> unsigned char name[4*sizeof(long)+2]; /* max: %lx-%lx\0 */
> };
>
> +/*
> + * Allowing any user to follow the symlinks in /proc/<pid>/map_files/ could
> + * allow processes to access files that should not be visible to them, so
> + * restrict follow_link() to CAP_SYS_ADMIN for these files.
> + */
> +static void *proc_map_files_follow_link(struct dentry *d, struct nameidata *n)
> +{
> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
> +
> + return proc_pid_follow_link(d, n);
> +}
I have thought a bit more about this and not sure it's reasonable to
limit it to CAP_SYS_ADMIN. What scenario are we protecting from?
Initially, I thought about something like this: privileged process opens a
file, map part of it, closes the file and drop privileges with hope to
limit further access to mapped window of the file. But I don't see what
would stop the unprivileged process from accessing rest of the file using
mremap(2). And if a process can do this, anybody who can ptrace(2) the
process can do this.
Am I missing something?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists