[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ceb318d-9af6-7a78-db6a-cfe9dd8a0823@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:47:58 -0700
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Security Officers <security@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: restrict kernel stack dumps to root
On 09/12/2018 03:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>> +linux-api, I guess
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:39 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Restrict the ability to inspect kernel stacks of arbitrary tasks to root
>>> in order to prevent a local attacker from exploiting racy stack unwinding
>>> to leak kernel task stack contents.
>>> See the added comment for a longer rationale.
>>>
>>> There don't seem to be any users of this userspace API that can't
>>> gracefully bail out if reading from the file fails. Therefore, I believe
>>> that this change is unlikely to break things.
>>> In the case that this patch does end up needing a revert, the next-best
>>> solution might be to fake a single-entry stack based on wchan.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2ec220e27f50 ("proc: add /proc/*/stack")
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/proc/base.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
>>> index ccf86f16d9f0..7e9f07bf260d 100644
>>> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
>>> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
>>> @@ -407,6 +407,20 @@ static int proc_pid_stack(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>>> unsigned long *entries;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * The ability to racily run the kernel stack unwinder on a running task
>>> + * and then observe the unwinder output is scary; while it is useful for
>>> + * debugging kernel issues, it can also allow an attacker to leak kernel
>>> + * stack contents.
>>> + * Doing this in a manner that is at least safe from races would require
>>> + * some work to ensure that the remote task can not be scheduled; and
>>> + * even then, this would still expose the unwinder as local attack
>>> + * surface.
>>> + * Therefore, this interface is restricted to root.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!file_ns_capable(m->file, &init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>> + return -EACCES;
>
> In the past, we've avoided hard errors like this in favor of just
> censoring the output. Do we want to be more cautious here? (i.e.
> return 0 or a fuller seq_printf(m, "[<0>] privileged\n"); return 0;)
>
The -EACCES is a strong hint to run with root privileges which is
nice from an end user perspective. If we don't want to return an
actual error, I think the "privileged" message would be okay.
Laura
>>> +
>>> entries = kmalloc_array(MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH, sizeof(*entries),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!entries)
>>> --
>>> 2.19.0.rc2.392.g5ba43deb5a-goog
>>>
>
> -Kees
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists