linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] exec: Remove recursion from search_binary

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 12:25:24 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] exec: Remove recursion from search_binary_handler

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:42:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> > Should binfmt_misc do the install, or can the consuming binfmt do it?
> > i.e. when binfmt_elf sees bprm->execfd, does it perform the install
> > instead?
> 
> I am still thinking about this one, but here is where I am at.  At a
> practical level passing the file descriptor of the script to interpreter
> seems like something we should encourage in the long term.  It removes
> races and it is cheaper because then the interpreter does not have to
> turn around and open the script itself.

Yeah, this does sounds pretty good, though I have concerns about doing
it for a process that isn't expecting it. I've seen a lot of bad code
make assumptions about initial fd numbers. :(

> Strictly speaking binfmt_misc should not need to close the file
> descriptor in binfmt_misc because we have already unshared the files
> struct and reset_files_struct should handle restoring it.

If I get what you mean, I agree. The error case is fine.

> Calling fd_install in binfmt_misc still seems wrong, as that exposes
> the new file descriptor to user space with the old creds.

I haven't dug into the details here -- is there a real risk here? The
old creds are what opened the file originally for the exec. Are you
thinking about executable-but-not-readable files?

> It is possible although unlikely for userspace to find the file
> descriptor without consulting AT_EXECFD so just to be conservative I
> think we should install the file descriptor in begin_new_exec even if
> the next interpreter does not support AT_EXECFD.

I think universally installing the fd needs to be a distinct patch --
it's going to have a lot of consequences, IMO. We can certainly deal
with them, but I don't think it should be part of this clean-up series.

> I am still working on how to handle recursive binfmts but I suspect it
> is just a matter of having an array of struct files in struct
> linux_binprm.

If install is left if binfmt_misc, then the recursive problem goes away,
yes?

-- 
Kees Cook