Message-ID: <20181001054246.gfinmx3api7kjhmc@ryuk>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:44:28 +1000
From:   Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, jlayton@...nel.org,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, shuah@...nel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, christian@...uner.io,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, dev@...ncontainers.org,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] namei: implement AT_THIS_ROOT chroot-like path
 resolution

On 2018-09-29, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> The problem is what happens if a folder you are walking through is
> concurrently moved out of the chroot. Consider the following scenario:
> 
> You attempt to open "C/../../etc/passwd" under the root "/A/B".
> Something else concurrently moves /A/B/C to /A/C. This can result in
> the following:
> 
> 1. You start the path walk and reach /A/B/C.
> 2. The other process moves /A/B/C to /A/C. Your path walk is now at /A/C.
> 3. Your path walk follows the first ".." up into /A. This is outside
> the process root, but you never actually encountered the process root,
> so you don't notice.
> 4. Your path walk follows the second ".." up to /. Again, this is
> outside the process root, but you don't notice.
> 5. Your path walk walks down to /etc/passwd, and the open completes
> successfully. You now have an fd pointing outside your chroot.
> 
> If the root of your walk is below an attacker-controlled directory,
> this of course means that you lose instantly. If you point the root of
> the walk at a directory out of which a process in the container
> wouldn't be able to move the file, you're probably kinda mostly fine -
> as long as you know, for certain, that nothing else on the system
> would ever do that. But I still wouldn't feel good about that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here (this is the first patch I've
written for VFS). Isn't the retry/LOOKUP_REVAL code meant to handle this
-- or does that only handle if a particular path component changes
*while* it's being walked through? Is it possible for a path walk to
succeed after a path component was unmounted (obviously you can't delete
a directory path component since you'd get -ENOTEMPTY)?

If this is an issue for AT_THIS_ROOT, I believe this might also be an
issue for AT_BENEATH since they are effectively both using the same
nd->root trick (so you could similarly trick AT_BENEATH to not error
out). So we'd need to figure out how to solve this problem in order for
AT_BENEATH to be safe.

Speaking naively, doesn't it make sense to invalidate the walk if a path
component was modified? Or is this something that would be far too
costly with little benefit? What if we do more aggressive nd->root
checks when resolving with AT_BENEATH or AT_THIS_ROOT (or if nd->root !=
current->mnt_ns->root)?

Regarding chroot attacks, I was aware of the trivial
chroot-open-chroot-fchdir attack but I was not aware that there was a
rename attack for chroot. Thanks for bringing this up!

> I believe that the only way to robustly use this would be to point the
> dirfd at a mount point, such that you know that being moved out of the
> chroot is impossible because the mount point limits movement of
> directories under it. (Well, technically, it doesn't, but it ensures
> that if a directory does dangerously move away, the syscall fails.) It
> might make sense to hardcode this constraint in the implementation of
> AT_THIS_ROOT, to keep people from shooting themselves in the foot.

Unless I'm missing something, would this not also affect using a
mountpoint as a dirfd-root (with MS_MOVE of an already-walked-through
path component) -- or does MS_MOVE cause a rewalk in a way that rename
does not?

I wouldn't mind tying AT_THIS_ROOT to only work on mountpoints (I
thought that bind-mounts would be an issue but you also get -EXDEV when
trying to rename across bind-mounts even if they are on the same
underlying filesystem). But AT_BENEATH might be a more bitter pill to
swallow. I'm not sure.

In the usecase of container runtimes, we wouldn't generally be doing
resolution of attacker-controlled paths but it still definitely doesn't
hurt to consider this part of the threat model -- to avoid foot-gunning
as you've said. (There also might be some nested-container cases where
you might want to do that.)

> > Currently most container runtimes try to do this resolution in
> > userspace[1], causing many potential race conditions. In addition, the
> > "obvious" alternative (actually performing a {ch,pivot_}root(2))
> > requires a fork+exec which is *very* costly if necessary for every
> > filesystem operation involving a container.
> 
> Wait. fork() I understand, but why exec? And actually, you don't need
> a full fork() either, clone() lets you do this with some process parts
> shared. And then you also shouldn't need to use SCM_RIGHTS, just keep
> the file descriptor table shared. And why chroot()/pivot_root(),
> wouldn't you want to use setns()?

You're right about this -- for C runtimes. In Go we cannot do a raw
clone() or fork() (if you do it manually with RawSyscall you'll end with
broken runtime state). So you're forced to do fork+exec (which then
means that you can't use CLONE_FILES and must use SCM_RIGHTS). Same goes
for CLONE_VFORK.

(It should be noted that multi-threaded C runtimes have somewhat similar
issues -- AFAIK you can technically only use AS-Safe glibc functions
after a fork() but that's more of a theoretical concern here. If you
just use raw syscalls there isn't an issue.)

As for why use setns() rather than pivot_root(), there are cases where
you're operating on a container's image without a running container
(think image extraction or snapshotting tools). In those cases, you
would need to set up a dummy container process in order to setns() into
its namespaces. You are right that setns() would be a better option if
you want the truthful state of what mounts the container sees.

[I also don't like the idea of joining the user namespace of a malicious
container unless it's necessary but that's probably just needless
paranoia more than anything -- since you're not joining the pidns you
aren't trivially addressable by a malicious container.]

> // Ensure that we are non-dumpable. Together with
> // commit bfedb589252c, this ensures that container root
> // can't trace our child once it enters the container.
> // My patch
> // https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1451098351-8917-1-git-send-email-jann@thejh.net/
> // would make this unnecessary, but that patch didn't
> // land because Eric nacked it (for political reasons,
> // because people incorrectly claimed that this was a
> // security fix):

Unless I'm very much mistaken this was fixed by bfedb589252c ("mm: Add a
user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace permission checks"). If you
join a user namespace then processes within that user namespace won't
have ptrace_may_access() permissions because your mm is owned by an
ancestor user namespace -- only after exec() will you be traceable.

We still use PR_SET_DUMPABLE in runc but that's because we support older
kernels (and people don't use user namespaces under Docker) but with
user namespaces this should not be required anymore.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists