linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: Extend exec

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: <87y2rekm9d.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:14:38 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Adam Zabrocki <pi3@....com.pl>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Extend exec_id to 64bits

Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:50 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> Replace the 32bit exec_id with a 64bit exec_id to make it impossible
>> to wrap the exec_id counter.  With care an attacker can cause exec_id
>> wrap and send arbitrary signals to a newly exec'd parent.  This
>> bypasses the signal sending checks if the parent changes their
>> credentials during exec.
>>
>> The severity of this problem can been seen that in my limited testing
>> of a 32bit exec_id it can take as little as 19s to exec 65536 times.
>> Which means that it can take as little as 14 days to wrap a 32bit
>> exec_id.  Adam Zabrocki has succeeded wrapping the self_exe_id in 7
>> days.  Even my slower timing is in the uptime of a typical server.
>
> FYI, if you actually optimize this, it's more like 12s to exec 1048576
> times according to my test, which means ~14 hours for 2^32 executions
> (on a single core). That's on an i7-4790 (a Haswell desktop processor
> that was launched about six years ago, in 2014).

Half a day.  I am not at all surprised, but it is good to know it can
take so little time.

Eric