linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 0/1] security: add SECURE_KEEP_FSUID to preserve fsuid/fsgid across execve

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: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906142049480.3646@namei.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@...mai.com>
cc:     Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/1] security: add SECURE_KEEP_FSUID to preserve
 fsuid/fsgid across execve

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, Lubashev, Igor wrote:

> > On Friday, June 14, 2019, James Morris wrote:

> Unfortunately, perf is using uid==0 and euid==0 as a "capability bits".
>
> 
> In tools/perf/util/evsel.c:
> 	static bool perf_event_can_profile_kernel(void)
> 	{
> 		return geteuid() == 0 || perf_event_paranoid() == -1;
> 	}
> 
> In tools/perf/util/symbol.c:
> 	static bool symbol__read_kptr_restrict(void)
> 	{
> 	...
> 		value = ((geteuid() != 0) || (getuid() != 0)) ?
> 				(atoi(line) != 0) :
> 				(atoi(line) == 2);
> 	...
> 	}

These are bugs. They should be checking for CAP_SYS_ADMIN.


> 
> > Have you considered the example security configuration in
> > Documentation/admin-guide/perf-security.rst ?
> 
> Unfortunately, this configuration does not work, unless you reset 
> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid to a permissive level (see code 
> above). We have perf_event_paranoid set to 2. If it worked, we could had 
> implemented the same capability-based policy in the wrapper.

This is not necessary for a process which has CAP_SYS_ADMIN.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>