linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 262/342] seccomp: always propagate NO_NEW

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]

Message-Id: <20160301234536.368544446@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:55:12 +0000
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 262/342] seccomp: always propagate NO_NEW_PRIVS on tsync

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>

commit 103502a35cfce0710909da874f092cb44823ca03 upstream.

Before this patch, a process with some permissive seccomp filter
that was applied by root without NO_NEW_PRIVS was able to add
more filters to itself without setting NO_NEW_PRIVS by setting
the new filter from a throwaway thread with NO_NEW_PRIVS.

Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/seccomp.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -316,24 +316,24 @@ static inline void seccomp_sync_threads(
 		put_seccomp_filter(thread);
 		smp_store_release(&thread->seccomp.filter,
 				  caller->seccomp.filter);
+
+		/*
+		 * Don't let an unprivileged task work around
+		 * the no_new_privs restriction by creating
+		 * a thread that sets it up, enters seccomp,
+		 * then dies.
+		 */
+		if (task_no_new_privs(caller))
+			task_set_no_new_privs(thread);
+
 		/*
 		 * Opt the other thread into seccomp if needed.
 		 * As threads are considered to be trust-realm
 		 * equivalent (see ptrace_may_access), it is safe to
 		 * allow one thread to transition the other.
 		 */
-		if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
-			/*
-			 * Don't let an unprivileged task work around
-			 * the no_new_privs restriction by creating
-			 * a thread that sets it up, enters seccomp,
-			 * then dies.
-			 */
-			if (task_no_new_privs(caller))
-				task_set_no_new_privs(thread);
-
+		if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED)
 			seccomp_assign_mode(thread, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER);
-		}
 	}
 }