linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] implement OA2_INHERIT

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: <df51f2fd-385a-47bf-a072-a8988a801d52@yandex.ru>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:12:12 +0300
From: stsp <stsp2@...dex.ru>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
 Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Alexander Aring
 <alex.aring@...il.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] implement OA2_INHERIT_CRED flag for openat2()

25.04.2024 12:54, Christian Brauner пишет:
> I'm not sure what you don't understand or why you need further
> clarification. Your patch allows any opener using your new flag to steal
> the uid/gid/whatever from the original opener.

No, absolutely impossible (see below).

>   It was even worse in the
> first version where the whole struct cred of the original opener was
> used. It's obviously a glaring security hole that's opened up by this.

Well, it was the second version actually
(first one only had fsuid/fsgid), but no,
its the same thing either way.
The creds are overridden for a diration of
an openat2() syscall. It doesn't matter
what uid/gid are there, because they are
not used during openat2(), and are reverted
back at the end. The only reason I decided
to get back to fsuid/fsgid, were the capabilities,
which I don't want to be raised during openat2().

> Let alone that the justification "It's useful for some lightweight
> sandboxing" is absolutely not sufficient to justify substantial shifts
> in the permission model.
>
> The NAK stands.

But I am sure you still don't understand
what exactly the patch does, so why not
to ask instead of asserting?
You say uid/gid can be stolen, but no,
it can't: the creds are reverted. Only
fsuid/fsgid (and caps in v2 of the patch)
actually affect openat2(), but nothing is
"leaked" after openat2() finished.

That said, Viro already pointed to the actual
problem, and the patch-testing bot did the
same. So I have a valid complains already,
and you don't have to add the invalid ones
to them. :)