Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:53:39 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Edgar Arriaga García <edgararriaga@...gle.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/madvise: replace ptrace attach requirement for process_madvise

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:34 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:08 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:51 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:52 AM 'Michal Hocko' via kernel-team
> > > <kernel-team@...roid.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 20-01-21 14:17:39, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:22 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue 12-01-21 09:51:24, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:45 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 01/12, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon 11-01-21 09:06:22, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What we want is the ability for one process to influence another process
> > > > > > > > > > in order to optimize performance across the entire system while leaving
> > > > > > > > > > the security boundary intact.
> > > > > > > > > > Replace PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH with a combination of PTRACE_MODE_READ
> > > > > > > > > > and CAP_SYS_NICE. PTRACE_MODE_READ to prevent leaking ASLR metadata
> > > > > > > > > > and CAP_SYS_NICE for influencing process performance.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have to say that ptrace modes are rather obscure to me. So I cannot
> > > > > > > > > really judge whether MODE_READ is sufficient. My understanding has
> > > > > > > > > always been that this is requred to RO access to the address space. But
> > > > > > > > > this operation clearly has a visible side effect. Do we have any actual
> > > > > > > > > documentation for the existing modes?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would be really curious to hear from Jann and Oleg (now Cced).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can't comment, sorry. I never understood these security checks and never tried.
> > > > > > > > IIUC only selinux/etc can treat ATTACH/READ differently and I have no idea what
> > > > > > > > is the difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yama in particular only does its checks on ATTACH and ignores READ,
> > > > > that's the difference you're probably most likely to encounter on a
> > > > > normal desktop system, since some distros turn Yama on by default.
> > > > > Basically the idea there is that running "gdb -p $pid" or "strace -p
> > > > > $pid" as a normal user will usually fail, but reading /proc/$pid/maps
> > > > > still works; so you can see things like detailed memory usage
> > > > > information and such, but you're not supposed to be able to directly
> > > > > peek into a running SSH client and inject data into the existing SSH
> > > > > connection, or steal the cryptographic keys for the current
> > > > > connection, or something like that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't seen a written explanation on ptrace modes but when I
> > > > > > > consulted Jann his explanation was:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PTRACE_MODE_READ means you can inspect metadata about processes with
> > > > > > > the specified domain, across UID boundaries.
> > > > > > > PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH means you can fully impersonate processes with the
> > > > > > > specified domain, across UID boundaries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe this would be a good start to document expectations. Some more
> > > > > > practical examples where the difference is visible would be great as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before documenting the behavior, it would be a good idea to figure out
> > > > > what to do with perf_event_open(). That one's weird in that it only
> > > > > requires PTRACE_MODE_READ, but actually allows you to sample stuff
> > > > > like userspace stack and register contents (if perf_event_paranoid is
> > > > > 1 or 2). Maybe for SELinux things (and maybe also for Yama), there
> > > > > should be a level in between that allows fully inspecting the process
> > > > > (for purposes like profiling) but without the ability to corrupt its
> > > > > memory or registers or things like that. Or maybe perf_event_open()
> > > > > should just use the ATTACH mode.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification. I still cannot say I would have a good
> > > > mental picture. Having something in Documentation/core-api/ sounds
> > > > really needed. Wrt to perf_event_open it sounds really odd it can do
> > > > more than other places restrict indeed. Something for the respective
> > > > maintainer but I strongly suspect people simply copy the pattern from
> > > > other places because the expected semantic is not really clear.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, back to the matters of this patch. Are there any actionable
> > > items for me to take care of before it can be accepted? The only
> > > request from Andrew to write a man page is being worked on at
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210120202337.1481402-1-surenb@google.com/
> > > and I'll follow up with the next version. I also CC'ed stable@ for
> > > this to be included into 5.10 per Andrew's request. That CC was lost
> > > at some point, so CC'ing again.
> > >
> > > I do not see anything else on this patch to fix. Please chime in if
> > > there are any more concerns, otherwise I would ask Andrew to take it
> > > into mm-tree and stable@ to apply it to 5.10.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > process_madvise man page V2 is posted at:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210129070340.566340-1-surenb@google.com/
>
> process_madvise man page V3 is posted at:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210202053046.1653012-1-surenb@google.com/
>

Hi Andrew,
A friendly reminder to please include this patch into mm tree.
There seem to be no more questions or objections.
The man page you requested is accepted here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?id=a144f458bad476a3358e3a45023789cb7bb9f993
stable is CC'ed and this patch should go into 5.10 and later kernels
The patch has been:
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

If you want me to resend it, please let me know.
Thanks,
Suren.


> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michal Hocko
> > > > SUSE Labs
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@...roid.com.
> > > >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists