linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] exec: Fix a deadlock in ptrace

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]

Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 19:08:29 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] exec: Fix a deadlock in ptrace

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> On March 2, 2020 6:37:27 PM GMT+01:00, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:01 PM Bernd Edlinger
> ><bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
> >> On 3/2/20 5:43 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:19 PM Eric W. Biederman
> ><ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> >> I am 99% convinced that the fix is to move cred_guard_mutex down.
> >> >
> >> > "move cred_guard_mutex down" as in "take it once we've already set
> >up
> >> > the new process, past the point of no return"?
> >> >
> >> >> Then right after we take cred_guard_mutex do:
> >> >>         if (ptraced) {
> >> >>                 use_original_creds();
> >> >>         }
> >> >>
> >> >> And call it a day.
> >> >>
> >> >> The details suck but I am 99% certain that would solve everyones
> >> >> problems, and not be too bad to audit either.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, hmm, that sounds like it'll work fine at least when no LSMs are
> >involved.
> >> >
> >> > SELinux normally doesn't do the execution-degrading thing, it just
> >> > blocks the execution completely - see their
> >selinux_bprm_set_creds()
> >> > hook. So I think they'd still need to set some state on the task
> >that
> >> > says "we're currently in the middle of an execution where the
> >target
> >> > task will run in context X", and then check against that in the
> >> > ptrace_may_access hook. Or I suppose they could just kill the task
> >> > near the end of execve, although that'd be kinda ugly.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We have current->in_execve for that, right?
> >> I think when the cred_guard_mutex is taken only in the critical
> >section,
> >> then PTRACE_ATTACH could take the guard_mutex, and look at
> >current->in_execve,
> >> and just return -EAGAIN in that case, right, everybody happy :)
> >
> >It's probably going to mean that things like strace will just randomly
> >fail to attach to processes if they happen to be in the middle of
> >execve... but I guess that works?
>
> That sounds like an acceptable outcome.
> We can at least risk it and if we regress
> revert or come up with the more complex
> solution suggested in another mail here?

Yeah, sounds reasonable, I guess.