linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: Harden against open(..., O

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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:43:23 -0500
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, security@...nel.org
Cc:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs: Harden against open(..., O_CREAT, 02777) in
 a setgid directory

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 18:49 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Currently, if you open("foo", O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | ..., 02777) in a
> directory that is setgid and owned by a different gid than current's
> fsgid, you end up with an SGID executable that is owned by the
> directory's GID.  This is a Bad Thing (tm).  Exploiting this is
> nontrivial because most ways of creating a new file create an empty
> file and empty executables aren't particularly interesting, but this
> is nevertheless quite dangerous.
> 
> Harden against this type of attack by detecting this particular
> corner case (unprivileged program creates SGID executable inode in
> SGID directory owned by a different GID) and clearing the new
> inode's SGID bit.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/inode.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 0e1e141b094c..f6acb9232263 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -2025,12 +2025,30 @@ void inode_init_owner(struct inode *inode, const struct inode *dir,
>  			umode_t mode)
>  {
>  	inode->i_uid = current_fsuid();
> +	inode->i_gid = current_fsgid();
> +
>  	if (dir && dir->i_mode & S_ISGID) {

I'm surprised the compiler doesn't complain about ambiguous order of ops
in the above if statement. Might be nice to add some parenthesis there
since you're in here, just for clarity.

> +		bool changing_gid = !gid_eq(inode->i_gid, dir->i_gid);
> +
>  		inode->i_gid = dir->i_gid;
> -		if (S_ISDIR(mode))
> +
> +		if (S_ISDIR(mode)) {
>  			mode |= S_ISGID;
> -	} else
> -		inode->i_gid = current_fsgid();
> +		} else if (((mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP))
> +			   && S_ISREG(mode) && changing_gid
> +			   && !capable(CAP_FSETID)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Whoa there!  An unprivileged program just
> +			 * tried to create a new executable with SGID
> +			 * set in a directory with SGID set that belongs
> +			 * to a different group.  Don't let this program
> +			 * create a SGID executable that ends up owned
> +			 * by the wrong group.
> +			 */
> +			mode &= ~S_ISGID;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	inode->i_mode = mode;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(inode_init_owner);

It's hard to picture any applications that would rely on the legacy
behavior, but if they come out of the woodwork, we could always add a
"make my kernel unsafe" command-line or compile time switch to bring it
back.

I think this is reasonable thing to do, but Michael K. is correct that
we should document the behavior changes in the relevant manpages.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>