[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55521F28.1020306@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 18:41:28 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mark Williamson <mwilliamson@...o-software.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Mark Seaborn <mseaborn@...omium.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Daniel James <djames@...o-software.com>,
Finn Grimwood <fgrimwood@...o-software.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] pagemap: hide physical addresses from non-privileged
users
On 12.05.2015 18:06, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
> <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>> @@ -1260,6 +1269,8 @@ static ssize_t pagemap_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>> if (!count)
>> goto out_task;
>>
>> + /* do not disclose physical addresses: attack vector */
>> + pm.show_pfn = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
>> pm.v2 = soft_dirty_cleared;
>> pm.len = (PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> pm.buffer = kmalloc(pm.len * PM_ENTRY_BYTES, GFP_TEMPORARY);
>
> NO! Dammit, no, no, no!
>
> How many times must people do this major security faux-pas before we learn?
Oops. Sorry. I guess everybody must do that mistake at least once.
That's my first time. =)
So, in this case existing call of mm_access() from pagemap_read()
is a bug too because it checks CAP_SYS_PTRACE for current task.
I'll rework it in the same way as /proc/*/[s]maps.
>
> WE DO NOT CHECK CURRENT CAPABILITIES AT READ/WRITE TIME!
>
> It's a bug. It's a security issue. It's not how Unix capabilities work!
>
> Capabilities are checked at open time.:
>
>> @@ -1335,9 +1346,6 @@ out:
>>
>> static int pagemap_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> {
>> - /* do not disclose physical addresses: attack vector */
>> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> - return -EPERM;
>
> THIS is where you are supposed to check for capabilities. The place
> where you removed it!
>
> The reason we check capabilities at open time, and open time ONLY is
> because that is really very integral to the whole Unix security model.
> Otherwise, you get into this situation:
>
> - unprivileged process opens file
>
> - unprivileged process tricks suid process to do the actual access for it
>
> where the traditional model is to just force a "write()" by opening
> the file as stderr, and then executing a suid process (traditionally
> "sudo") that writes an error message to it.
>
> So *don't* do permission checks using read/write time credentials.
> They are wrong.
>
> Now, if there is some reason that you really can't do it when opening
> the file, and you actually need to use capability information at
> read/write time, you use the "file->f_cred" field, which is the
> open-time capabilities. So you _can_ do permission checks at
> read/write time, but you have to use the credentials of the opener,
> not "current".
>
> So in this case, I guess you could use
>
> pm.show_pfn = file_ns_capable(file, &init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
>
> if you really need to do this at read time, and cannot fill in that
> "show_pfn" at open-time.
>
> Linus
>
--
Konstantin
--
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