linux-kernel - Re: handling of supplemental groups with userns

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150922215215.GE27286@vapier.lan>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:52:15 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: handling of supplemental groups with userns

On 22 Sep 2015 14:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
> > is it possible to map in supplemental groups in a userns when the user
> > lacks setgid/etc... capabilities in the parent ns ?  it doesn't seem
> > like it's currently possible, but is there a reason to not enable it ?
> 
> In your unprivileged use scenario, you won't be able to drop
> your supplementary groups so why do you need them mapped?
> 
> > basically i have a build tool that i want to isolate a bit, but it
> > requires access to some of my supplemental groups.  if i map just
> > my effective uid/gid, the build will fail when it tries to use the
> > chown/chgrp commands (gets back EINVAL).
> 
> Yes.  That really isn't valid as you are dropping groups.  Peculiarly
> enough dropping groups can be a security issue as in some permission
> checks not being a member of a group can give you enhanced access to
> files and directories.

i don't want to drop groups ... i want the exact opposite actually :).
ideally, `id` would have the same output before/after.  instead, i get
65534 for all the supplemental groups.  these commands work before i
create a new userns and i want them to keep working afterwards:
	chgrp 100 foo
	chgrp 250 foo
instead, only the first works (since that's my effective gid) and the
second fails (since i'm in that via a supplemental group).

> So to do something like what you want, you need a setuid helper (something
> like newuidmap or newgidmap) to verify that what you are doing is ok
> by local policy.

i know i can get it ahead of time if i have the caps apriori, but that's
not what i want to require.  if i had those, then i would generally be
able to simply create the namespaces directly and not bother with userns
in the first place :).

> > my scenario boils down to:
> >  - normal unprivileged user (uid=8282)
> >  - member of multiple groups (gid=100, getgroups={100,16,250,...})
> >  - create a new userns (to get access to other ns like mount/pid)
> >    but still have access to existing groups where i'm root
> >  - use various features that require caps (new pidns/mntns/etc...)
> >  - create another userns and map back non-root users/groups
> > i.e. i switch from 8282 to 0, do what i need, then switch back to 8282.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > in the mean time, a "quick" fix might be to change new_idmap_permitted
> > to walk all the extents, and if all the ranges are set to 1, check the
> > supplemental groups in addition to the current egid ?
> 
> That allows dropping groups that you could not drop normally and so we
> can't allow it, by default.

if setgroups is set to deny, then it's not possible for me to drop any
groups, and therefore allowing me to map supplemental groups wouldn't be
a problem right ?
-mike

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)