Message-ID: <87wpo7itzk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Fri, 08 Apr 2016 18:03:11 -0500
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, security@...ian.org,
	"security\@kernel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"security\@ubuntu.com \>\> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] devpts: Teach /dev/ptmx to find the associated devpts via path lookup

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> But more fundamentally I still don't actually understand why you even
> really care.

At this point I care because there is a failure of communication.
Until this email no one has ever said:  "Ok that actually could happen
but we don't actually care."

Right now I am a bit paranoid because I have seen a few too many cases
where some little detail was glossed over and someone clever turned it
into a great big CVE they could drive a truck through.  So I am once
bitten twice shy and all of that.

> We get the wrong pts case *today*. We'd get a different wrong pts
> namespace when somebody tries to do odd things. Why would we care? It
> would be a _better_ guess.
>
> I don't see the security issue. If you do tricks to get pty's in
> another group, what's the problem? You have to do it consciously, and
> I don't see what the downside is. You get what you ask for, and I
> don't see a new attack surface.
>
> The whole "somebody used chmod on /dev/pts/" argument sounds bogus.
> That's an insane thing to do. If you want a private namespace, you
> make *all* of /dev private, you don't go "oh, I'll just make the pts
> subdirectory private".

Oh I pretty much agree it is an insane thing to do.  At the same time I
know that people can make a lot of little sane decisions that can lead
to an insane situation, so just because it is insane I can't rule
it out automatically.

The actual sane thing to do, and what I think most of userspace does
at this point is to create it's own mount namespace so nothing is
visible to outsiders.

> In other words, your whole scenario sounds totally made up to begin
> with. And even if it happens, I don't see what would be so disastrous
> about it.

In general I agree.  The scenario is made up.  I would be surprised if
it happens.

> I mean, right now, /dev/ptmx is world read-write in the root container
> and everybody gets access to the same underlying set of ptys. And
> that's not some horrible security issue. It's how things are
> *supposed* to work.

I agree.

> So I really don't see the argument. You guys are just making shit up.

I don't see why we have the linux extension of supporting anything
except mode 0666 on /dev/ptmx or /dev/pts/ptmx.  This is really about
not breaking that linux extension by overlooking some little detail.

On the attack analysis front the worst thing I can see happening is a
denial of service attack.  I see two possible denial of service attacks.
One possible attack creates a pty and prevents devpts from being
unmounted.  Another possible attack creates all possible ptys on a
devpts instance, and prevents legitimate tty creations from happening.

At the end of the day as you say it would be a pretty crazy person who
isolated a mount of devpts with just the permissions of /dev/pts/ptmx.
So if we don't want to care knowing those stupid attacks above are
possible I am happy not to care.  They don't look all that serious to
me.

Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists