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: <CAJHCu1+3jcJWSyPE8DsFfaR-NNtG5P=H31cKeDuagx_w1u0urA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 11:33:33 +0200
From:   Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        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

2018-05-28 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>:
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Salvatore Mesoraca
> <s.mesoraca16@...il.com> 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/proc/base.c       | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  fs/proc/internal.h   |  3 ++-
>>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c   |  4 ++--
>>  fs/proc/task_nommu.c |  2 +-
>>  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
>> index 1a76d75..01ecfec 100644
>> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
>> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
>> @@ -762,8 +762,9 @@ static int proc_single_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>         .release        = single_release,
>>  };
>>
>> -
>> -struct mm_struct *proc_mem_open(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
>> +struct mm_struct *proc_mem_open(struct inode *inode,
>> +                               unsigned int mode,
>> +                               fmode_t f_mode)
>>  {
>>         struct task_struct *task = get_proc_task(inode);
>>         struct mm_struct *mm = ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
>> @@ -773,10 +774,20 @@ struct mm_struct *proc_mem_open(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
>>                 put_task_struct(task);
>>
>>                 if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mm)) {
>> -                       /* ensure this mm_struct can't be freed */
>> -                       mmgrab(mm);
>> -                       /* but do not pin its memory */
>> -                       mmput(mm);
>> +                       /*
>> +                        * Prevent this interface from being used as a mean
>> +                        * to bypass memory restrictions, including those
>> +                        * imposed by LSMs.
>> +                        */
>> +                       if (mm == current->mm &&
>> +                           f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
>> +                               mm = ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
>> +                       else {
>> +                               /* ensure this mm_struct can't be freed */
>> +                               mmgrab(mm);
>> +                               /* but do not pin its memory */
>> +                               mmput(mm);
>> +                       }
>>                 }
>>         }
>
> I don't have an opinion on the overall patch, but this part looks
> buggy: In the error path, you set `mm` to an error pointer, but you
> still own the reference that mm_access() took on the old `mm`. The
> error path needs to call `mmput(mm)`.

You are absolutely right,

Thank you,

Salvatore