linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at kernel/cred.c:434!

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: <CAHC9VhTdJ6uUOjyxrk=+iOkKe=VN+N9DMPtV=OchAY34x95g=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:24:54 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        "chengjian (D)" <cj.chengjian@...wei.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Xiexiuqi (Xie XiuQi)" <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
        Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
        Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        SELinux <selinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at kernel/cred.c:434!

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Yang Yingliang
<yangyingliang@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 2019/4/19 10:04, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:50 PM Yang Yingliang
> > <yangyingliang@...wei.com> wrote:
> >> On 2019/4/18 8:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>> On 4/17/2019 4:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>> Since it looks like all three LSMs which implement the setprocattr
> >>>> hook are vulnerable I'm open to the idea that proc_pid_attr_write() is
> >>>> a better choice for the cred != read_cred check, but I would want to
> >>>> make sure John and Casey are okay with that.
> >>>>
> >>>> John?
> >>>>
> >>>> Casey?
> >>> I'm fine with the change going into proc_pid_attr_write().
> >> The cred != real_cred checking is not enough.
> >>
> >> Consider this situation, when doing override, cred, real_cred and
> >> new_cred are all same:
> >>
> >> after override_creds()    cred == real_cred == new1_cred
> > I'm sorry, you've lost me.  After override_creds() returns
> > current->cred and current->real_cred are not going to be the same,
> > yes?
>
> It's possible the new  cred is equal to current->real_cred and
> current->cred,
> so after overrides_creds(), they have the same value.

Both task_struct.cred and task_struct.real_cred are pointer values,
assuming that one uses prepare_creds() to allocate/initialize a new
cred struct for use with override_creds() then the newly created cred
should never be equal to task_struct.real_cred.  Am I missing
something, or are you thinking of something else?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com