linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules autoload restriction

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: <CAGXu5jJBp6VHvDP9182hJgvzS2sBUbUFpmZZ+196K2FcEHUxzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:19:05 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        belakhdar abdeldjalil <zendyani@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] modules:capabilities: add a per-task modules
 autoload restriction

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> +/* Sets task's modules_autoload */
>>>> +static inline int task_set_modules_autoload(struct task_struct *task,
>>>> +                                           unsigned long value)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       if (value > MODULES_AUTOLOAD_DISABLED)
>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>>> +       else if (task->modules_autoload > value)
>>>> +               return -EPERM;
>>>> +       else if (task->modules_autoload < value)
>>>> +               task->modules_autoload = value;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This needs to be more locked down.  Otherwise someone could set this
>>> and then run a setuid program.  Admittedly, it would be quite odd if
>>> this particular thing causes a problem, but the issue exists
>>> nonetheless.
>>
>> Eeeh, I don't agree this needs to be changed. APIs provided by modules
>> are different than the existing privilege-manipulation syscalls this
>> concern stems from. Applications are already forced to deal with
>> things being missing like this in the face of it simply not being
>> built into the kernel.
>>
>> Having to hide this behind nnp seems like it'd reduce its utility...
>>
>
> I think that adding an inherited boolean to task_struct that can be
> set by unprivileged tasks and passed to privileged tasks is a terrible
> precedent.  Ideally someone would try to find all the existing things
> like this and kill them off.

(Tristate, not boolean, but yeah.)

I see two others besides seccomp and nnp:

PR_MCE_KILL
PR_SET_THP_DISABLE

I really don't think this needs nnp protection.

> I agree that I don't see how one would exploit this particular
> feature, but I still think I dislike the approach.  This is a slippery
> slope to adding a boolean for perf_event_open(), unshare(), etc, and
> we should solve these for real rather than half-arsing them IMO.

I disagree (obviously); this would be protecting the entire module
autoload attack surface. That's hardly a specific control, and it's a
demonstrably needed flag.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security