linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] exec: Set file unwritable before LSM check

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:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:54:04 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: Set file unwritable before LSM check

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> The LSM check should happen after the file has been confirmed to be
>> unchanging. Without this, we could have a race between the Time of Check
>> (the call to security_kernel_read_file() which could read the file and
>> make access policy decisions) and the Time of Use (starting with
>> kernel_read_file()'s reading of the file contents). In theory, file
>> contents could change between the two.
>
> I'm going to assume I get this for 4.17 from the security tree.
>
> Because I'm guessing there are actually no existing users that care?
> selinux seems to just look at file state, not actually at contents or
> anything that write access denial would care about.
>
> And the only other security module that even registers this is
> loadpin, and again it just seems to check things like "on the right
> filesystem" that aren't actually impacted by write access (in fact,
> the documented reason is to check that it's a read-only filesystem so
> that write access is simply _irrelevant_).
>
> So this issue seems to be mainly a cleanliness thing, not an actual bug.

That is my assumption too (I left off the Cc: stable as a result). I'm
much less familiar with IMA, though, but it's a caller of
kernel_read_file(), not hooking it, etc.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security