[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86CE201B-5632-4BB7-BCF6-7CB2C2895409@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:25:01 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
CC: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jorge Merlino <jorge.merlino@...onical.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
Prashanth Prahlad <pprahlad@...hat.com>,
Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs/exec: Explicitly unshare fs_struct on exec
On October 6, 2022 7:13:37 AM PDT, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:05 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:27:34AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > The check_unsafe_exec() counting of n_fs would not add up under a heavily
>> > threaded process trying to perform a suid exec, causing the suid portion
>> > to fail. This counting error appears to be unneeded, but to catch any
>> > possible conditions, explicitly unshare fs_struct on exec, if it ends up
>>
>> Isn't this a potential uapi break? Afaict, before this change a call to
>> clone{3}(CLONE_FS) followed by an exec in the child would have the
>> parent and child share fs information. So if the child e.g., changes the
>> working directory post exec it would also affect the parent. But after
>> this change here this would no longer be true. So a child changing a
>> workding directoro would not affect the parent anymore. IOW, an exec is
>> accompanied by an unshare(CLONE_FS). Might still be worth trying ofc but
>> it seems like a non-trivial uapi change but there might be few users
>> that do clone{3}(CLONE_FS) followed by an exec.
>
>I believe the following code in Chromium explicitly relies on this
>behavior, but I'm not sure whether this code is in active use anymore:
>
>https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:sandbox/linux/suid/sandbox.c;l=101?q=CLONE_FS&sq=&ss=chromium
Oh yes. I think I had tried to forget this existed. Ugh. Okay, so back to the drawing board, I guess. The counting will need to be fixed...
It's possible we can move the counting after dethread -- it seems the early count was just to avoid setting flags after the point of no return, but it's not an error condition...
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists