[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzchGpOp0R0RjM6Bsk23GWp1t76fgFi8q6FZQndHq5EtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:12:37 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: security@...ian.org, "security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"security@...ntu.com >> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Linus, you said that people who want to protect their pts should deny
> execute. So I set it up:
>
> # ls -l
> total 0
> crw-------. 1 root root 5, 2 Apr 12 10:38 ptmx
> drwx------. 2 root root 0 Apr 2 11:35 pts
No you didn't. You're root, and you still have access to /dev/ptmx.
> And there goes your protection. So the whole /dev directory would
> have to deny execute to protect against this.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. If you want your ptmx to be private,
you need to make your /dev private.
Now, you can avoid the other attack that was talked about (which
involved bind-mounting the pts/ directory somewhere else) by making
just the pts/ directory non-execute, because afaik bind mount requires
the ability to do the lookup.
> But I think that gating this on mount options might be fine. If
> devpts is mounted with newinstance, then /dev/ptmx *already doesn't
> work for it*, right? So can we just say that the magic ptmx ->
> pts/ptmx redirect doesn't work if the pts filesystem in question is
> mounted with newinstance?
No, the problem that started this whole discussion is that
(a) newinstance should go the f*ck away, because this whole duality is broken.
(b) people wanted single instances and we couldn't even enable
default kernel support for DEVPTS_MULTIPLE_INSTANCES, because multiple
instances just don't work with /dev/ptmx.
So what I want to happen is to "just make /dev/ptmx work". Get rid of
the broken "single instance" crap. The only reason it exists is
exactly because /dev/ptmx does not work.
I think the current situation is completely and utterly broken. We
should never have done what we did. I want to *fix* the kernel, not
add random new magic crap.
And I think we _can_ fix the kernel. Not add new mount options that
people already don't use (because they are broken for the normal
situation).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists