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]
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 16:08:37 +0200
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: sysctl_writes_strict documentation + an oddity?

Hello Kees,

Ping on the below!

Cheers,

Michael


On 9 May 2015 at 10:54, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
<mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> I discovered that you added /proc/sys/kernel/sysctl_writes_strict in
> Linux 3.16. In passing, I'll just mention that was an API change that
> should have been CCed to linux-api@...r.kernel.org.
>
> Anyway, I've tried to write this file up for the proc(5) man page,
> and I have two requests:
>
> 1) Could you review this text?
> 2) I've found some behavior that surprised me, and I am wondering if it
>    is intended. Could you let me know your thoughts?
>
> ===== 1) man-page text =====
>
> The man-page text, heavily based on your text in
> Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt, is as follows:
>
>        /proc/sys/kernel/sysctl_writes_strict (since Linux 3.16)
>               The  value  in  this  file  determines how the file offset
>               affects the behavior of updating entries  in  files  under
>               /proc/sys.  The file has three possible values:
>
>               -1  This  provides  legacy  handling, with no printk warn‐
>                   ings.  Each write(2) must fully contain the  value  to
>                   be  written,  and  multiple  writes  on  the same file
>                   descriptor will overwrite the entire value, regardless
>                   of the file position.
>
>               0   (default)  This  provides the same behavior as for -1,
>                   but printk warnings are  written  for  processes  that
>                   perform writes when the file offset is not 0.
>
>               1   Respect  the  file  offset  when  writing strings into
>                   /proc/sys files.  Multiple writes will append  to  the
>                   value  buffer.   Anything  written  beyond the maximum
>                   length of the value buffer will be ignored.  Writes to
>                   numeric  /proc/sys entries must always be at file off‐
>                   set 0 and the value must be  fully  contained  in  the
>                   buffer provided to write(2).
>
> ===== 2) Behavior puzzle (a) =====
>
> The last sentence quoted from the man page was based on your sentence
>
>     Writes to numeric sysctl entries must always be at file position 0
>     and the value must be fully contained in the buffer sent in the write
>     syscall.
>
> So, I had interpreted /proc/sys/kernel/sysctl_writes_strict==1 to
> mean that if one writes into a numeric /proc/sys file at an offset
> other than zero, the write() will fail with some kind of error.
> But this seems not to be the case. Instead, the write() succeeds,
> but the file is left unmodified. That's surprising, I find. So, I'm
> wondering whether the implementation deviates from your intention.
>
> There's a test program below, which takes arguments as follows
>
>     ./a.out pathname offset string
>
> And here's a test run that demonstrates the behavior:
>
> $ sudo sh -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysctl_writes_strict"
> $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max
> 32768
> $ sudo dmesg --clear
> $ sudo ./a.out /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max 1 3000
> write() succeeded (return value 4)
> $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max
> 32768
> $ dmesg
>
> As you can see above, an attempt was made to write into the
> /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max file at offset 1.
> The write() returned successfully (reporting 4 bytes written)
> but the file contents were unchanged, and no printk() warning
> was issued. Is this intended behavior?
>
> ===== 2) Behavior puzzle (b) =====
>
> In commit f88083005ab319abba5d0b2e4e997558245493c8, there is this note:
>
>     This adds the sysctl kernel.sysctl_writes_strict to control the write
>     behavior.  The default (0) reports when VFS position is non-0 on a
>     write, but retains legacy behavior, -1 disables the warning, and 1
>     enables the position-respecting behavior.
>
>     The long-term plan here is to wait for userspace to be fixed in response
>     to the new warning and to then switch the default kernel behavior to the
>     new position-respecting behavior.
>
> (That last para was added to the commit message by AKPM, I see.)
>
> But, I wonder here whether /proc/sys/kernel/sysctl_writes_strict==0
> is going to help with the long-term plan. The problem is that in
> warn_sysctl_write(), pr_warn_once() is used. This means that only
> the first offending user-space application that writes to *any*
> /proc/sys file will generate the printk warning. If that application
> isn't fixed, then none of the other "broken" applications will be
> discovered. It therefore seems possible that it could be a very long
> time before we could "switch the default kernel behavior to the
> new position-respecting behavior".
>
> Looking over old mails
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1695177/focus=23240),
> I see that you're aware of the problem, but it seems to me that
> the switch to pr_warn_once() (for fear of spamming the log) likely
> dooms the long-term plan to failure. Your thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
>
> 8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--8x--
>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> #define errExit(msg) do { perror(msg); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } while (0)
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>     char *pathname;
>     off_t offset;
>     char *string;
>     int fd;
>     ssize_t numWritten;
>
>     if (argc != 4) {
>         fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s pathname offset string\n", argv[0]);
>         exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>     }
>
>     pathname = argv[1];
>     offset = strtoll(argv[2], NULL, 0);
>     string = argv[3];
>
>     fd = open(pathname, O_RDWR);
>     if (fd == -1)
>         errExit("open");
>
>     if (lseek(fd, offset, SEEK_SET) == -1)
>         errExit("lseek");
>
>     numWritten = write(fd, string, strlen(string));
>     if (numWritten == -1)
>         errExit("write");
>
>     printf("write() succeeded (return value %zd)\n", numWritten);
>
>     exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> }
>
> --
> Michael Kerrisk
> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
> Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ