linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: prevent a task from writing on its own /proc/*/mem

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: <20180526175858.GA19115@avx2>
Date:   Sat, 26 May 2018 20:58:58 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
Cc:     Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: prevent a task from writing on its own /proc/*/mem

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 07:30:47PM +0200, Salvatore Mesoraca wrote:
> 2018-05-26 17:48 GMT+02:00 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 04:50:46PM +0200, Salvatore Mesoraca wrote:
> >> Prevent a task from opening, in "write" mode, any /proc/*/mem
> >> file that operates on the task's mm.
> >> /proc/*/mem is mainly a debugging means and, as such, it shouldn't
> >> be used by the inspected process itself.
> >> Current implementation always allow a task to access its own
> >> /proc/*/mem file.
> >> A process can use it to overwrite read-only memory, making
> >> pointless the use of security_file_mprotect() or other ways to
> >> enforce RO memory.
> >
> > You can do it in security_ptrace_access_check()
> 
> No, because that hook is skipped when mm == current->mm:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc6/source/kernel/fork.c#L1111

OK

> > or security_file_open()
> 
> This is true, but it looks a bit overkill to me, especially since many of
> the macros/functions used to handle proc's files won't be in scope
> for an external LSM.
> Is there any particular reason why you prefer it done via LSM?

Well, it exists to implement all kinds of non-standard restrictions.

You're probably blacklisting mprotect() and worry that compromised
program might use /proc/self/mem instead. But you need to blacklist
much more that mprotect(). I think forking a dummy "worker" process
to open your /proc/*/mem and pass a descriptor back should still work
with your patch.