| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4c6a338f-619b-9e99-9fd8-1cf6d86ecfed@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:20:32 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Subject: Re: Documenting ptrace access mode checking Hi Eric, On 06/21/2016 09:55 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Adding Oleg just because he seems to do most of the ptrace related > maintenance these days. > > "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> writes: > >> Hi Jann, Stephen, et al. >> >> Jann, since you recently committed a patch in this area, and Stephen, >> since you committed 006ebb40d3d much further back in time, I wonder if >> you might help me by reviewing the text below that I propose to add to >> the ptrace(2) man page, in order to document "ptrace access mode >> checking" that is performed in various parts of the kernel-user-space >> interface. Of course, I welcome input from anyone else as well. >> >> Here's the new ptrace(2) text. Any comments, technical or terminological >> fixes, other improvements, etc. are welcome. >> >> [[ >> Ptrace access mode checking >> Various parts of the kernel-user-space API (not just ptrace(2) >> operations), require so-called "ptrace access mode permissions" >> which are gated by Linux Security Modules (LSMs) such as >> SELinux, Yama, Smack, or the default LSM. Prior to Linux >> 2.6.27, all such checks were of a single type. Since Linux >> 2.6.27, two access mode levels are distinguished: >> >> PTRACE_MODE_READ >> For "read" operations or other operations that are less >> dangerous, such as: get_robust_list(2); kcmp(2); reading >> /proc/[pid]/auxv, /proc/[pid]/environ, or >> /proc/[pid]/stat; or readlink(2) of a /proc/[pid]/ns/* >> file. >> >> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH >> For "write" operations, or other operations that are >> more dangerous, such as: ptrace attaching >> (PTRACE_ATTACH) to another process or calling >> process_vm_writev(2). (PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH was effec‐ >> tively the default before Linux 2.6.27.) >> >> Since Linux 4.5, the above access mode checks may be combined >> (ORed) with one of the following modifiers: >> >> PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS >> Use the caller's filesystem UID and GID (see creden‐ >> tials(7)) or effective capabilities for LSM checks. >> >> PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS >> Use the caller's real UID and GID or permitted capabili‐ >> ties for LSM checks. This was effectively the default >> before Linux 4.5. >> >> Because combining one of the credential modifiers with one of >> the aforementioned access modes is typical, some macros are >> defined in the kernel sources for the combinations: >> >> PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS >> Defined as PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS. >> >> PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS >> Defined as PTRACE_MODE_READ | PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS. >> >> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_FSCREDS >> Defined as PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH | PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS. >> >> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS >> Defined as PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH | PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS. >> >> One further modifier can be ORed with the access mode: >> >> PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT (since Linux 3.3) >> Don't audit this access mode check. >> >> [I'd quite welcome some text to explain "auditing" here.] > > AKA don't let the audit subsystem know. Which tends to > generate audit records capable is called. >> >> The algorithm employed for ptrace access mode checking deter‐ >> mines whether the calling process is allowed to perform the >> corresponding action on the target process, as follows: >> >> 1. If the calling thread and the target thread are in the same >> thread group, access is always allowed. > > This test only exsits because the LSMs historically and I suspect > continue to be broken and deny a process the ability to ptrace itself. >> >> 2. If the access mode specifies PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS, then for >> the check in the next step, employ the caller's filesystem >> user ID and group ID (see credentials(7)); otherwise (the >> access mode specifies PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS, so) use the >> caller's real user ID and group ID. >> >> 3. Deny access if neither of the following is true: >> >> · The real, effective, and saved-set user IDs of the target >> match the caller's user ID, and the real, effective, and >> saved-set group IDs of the target match the caller's >> group ID. >> >> · The caller has the CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability. >> >> 4. Deny access if the target process "dumpable" attribute has >> a value other than 1 (SUID_DUMP_USER; see the discussion of >> PR_SET_DUMPABLE in prctl(2)), and the caller does not have >> the CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability in the user namespace of the >> target process. >> >> 5. The kernel LSM security_ptrace_access_check() interface is >> invoked to see if ptrace access is permitted. The results >> depend on the LSM. The implementation of this interface in >> the default LSM performs the following steps: >> >> a) If the access mode includes PTRACE_MODE_FSCREDS, then >> use the caller's effective capability set in the follow‐ >> ing check; otherwise (the access mode specifies >> PTRACE_MODE_REALCREDS, so) use the caller's permitted >> capability set. >> >> b) Deny access if neither of the following is true: >> >> · The caller's capabilities are a proper superset of the >> target process's permitted capabilities. >> >> · The caller has the CAP_SYS_PTRACE capability in the >> target process's user namespace. >> >> Note that the default LSM does not distinguish between >> PTRACE_MODE_READ and PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH. >> >> 6. If access has not been denied by any of the preceding >> steps, then access is allowed. >> ]] >> >> There are accompanying changes to various pages that refer to >> the new text in ptrace(2), so that, for example, kcmp(2) adds: >> >> Permission to employ kcmp() is governed by ptrace access mode >> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS checks against both pid1 and pid2; >> see ptrace(2). >> >> and proc.5 has additions such as: >> >> /proc/[pid]/auxv (since 2.6.0-test7) >> ... >> Permission to access this file is governed by a ptrace >> access mode PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS check; see >> ptrace(2). >> >> /proc/[pid]/cwd >> ... >> Permission to dereference or read (readlink(2)) this >> symbolic link is governed by a ptrace access mode >> PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS check; see ptrace(2). > > Hmm. > > When I gave this level of detail about the user namespace permission > checks you gave me some flack, because it was not particularly > comprehensible to the end users. I think you deserve the same feedback. > > How do we say this in a way that does not describes a useful way to > think about it. I read this and I know a lot of what is going on and my > mind goes numb. > > How about something like this: > > If the callers uid and gid are the same as a processes uids and gids > and the processes is configured to allow core dumps (aka it was never > setuid or setgid) then the caller is allowed to ptrace a process. > > Otherwise the caller must have CAP_SYS_PTRACE. > > Linux security modules impose additional restrictions. > > For consistency access to various process attributes are guarded with > the same security checks as the ptrace system call itself. As they are > all methods to get information about a process. > > We certainly need something that gives a high level view so people > reading the man page can know what to expect. If you get down into the > weeds we run the danger of people beginning to think they can depend > upon bugs in the implementation. Thanks for the feedback, but I think more detail is required than you suggest. (And I added all of that detail somewhat reluctantly.) See my other replies for my rationale. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists