[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005191111.9B389D33@keescook>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 11:21:34 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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@...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>,
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 v2 3/8] exec: Convert security_bprm_set_creds into
security_bprm_repopulate_creds
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:31:14PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Rename bprm->cap_elevated to bprm->active_secureexec and initialize it
> in prepare_binprm instead of in cap_bprm_set_creds. Initializing
> bprm->active_secureexec in prepare_binprm allows multiple
> implementations of security_bprm_repopulate_creds to play nicely with
> each other.
>
> Rename security_bprm_set_creds to security_bprm_reopulate_creds to
> emphasize that this path recomputes part of bprm->cred. This
> recomputation avoids the time of check vs time of use problems that
> are inherent in unix #! interpreters.
>
> In short two renames and a move in the location of initializing
> bprm->active_secureexec.
I like this much better than the direct call to the capabilities hook.
Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
One nit is a bikeshed on the name "active_secureexec", since
the word "active" isn't really associated with any other part of the
binfmt logic. It's supposed to be "latest state from the binfmt loop",
so instead of "active", I considered these words that I also didn't
like: "current", "this", "recent", and "now". Is "latest" better than
"active"? Probably not.
> [...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/binfmts.h b/include/linux/binfmts.h
> index d1217fcdedea..8605ab4a0f89 100644
> --- a/include/linux/binfmts.h
> +++ b/include/linux/binfmts.h
> @@ -27,10 +27,10 @@ struct linux_binprm {
> unsigned long argmin; /* rlimit marker for copy_strings() */
> unsigned int
> /*
> - * True if most recent call to cap_bprm_set_creds
> + * True if most recent call to security_bprm_set_creds
> * resulted in elevated privileges.
> */
> - cap_elevated:1,
> + active_secureexec:1,
Also, I'd like it if this comment could be made more verbose as well, for
anyone trying to understand the binfmt execution flow for the first time.
Perhaps:
/*
* Must be set True during the any call to
* bprm_set_creds hook where the execution would
* reuslt in elevated privileges. (The hook can be
* called multiple times during nested interpreter
* resolution across binfmt_script, binfmt_misc, etc).
*/
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists