linux-kernel - [PATCH v4] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:49:15 +0000
From: Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@...tonmail.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com, david@...dahead.eu, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, dverkamp@...omium.org, hughd@...gle.com, jeffxu@...gle.com, jorgelo@...omium.org, keescook@...omium.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

`MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should remove the executable bits and set `F_SEAL_EXEC`
to prevent further modifications to the executable bits as per the comment
in the uapi header file:

  not executable and sealed to prevent changing to executable

However, commit 105ff5339f498a ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
that introduced this feature made it so that `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` unsets
`F_SEAL_SEAL`, essentially acting as a superset of `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`.

Nothing implies that it should be so, and indeed up until the second version
of the of the patchset[0] that introduced `MFD_EXEC` and `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL`,
`F_SEAL_SEAL` was not removed, however, it was changed in the third revision
of the patchset[1] without a clear explanation.

This behaviour is surprising for application developers, there is no
documentation that would reveal that `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` has the additional
effect of `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`. Additionally, combined with `vm.memfd_noexec=2`
it has the effect of making all memfds initially sealable.

So do not remove `F_SEAL_SEAL` when `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` is requested,
thereby returning to the pre-Linux 6.3 behaviour of only allowing
sealing when `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING` is specified.

Now, this is technically a uapi break. However, the damage is expected
to be minimal. To trigger user visible change, a program has to do the
following steps:

 - create memfd:
   - with `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL`,
   - without `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`;
 - try to add seals / check the seals.

But that seems unlikely to happen intentionally since this change
essentially reverts the kernel's behaviour to that of Linux <6.3,
so if a program worked correctly on those older kernels, it will
likely work correctly after this change.

I have used Debian Code Search and GitHub to try to find potential
breakages, and I could only find a single one. dbus-broker's
memfd_create() wrapper is aware of this implicit `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`
behaviour, and tries to work around it[2]. This workaround will
break. Luckily, this only affects the test suite, it does not affect
the normal operations of dbus-broker. There is a PR with a fix[3].

I also carried out a smoke test by building a kernel with this change
and booting an Arch Linux system into GNOME and Plasma sessions.

There was also a previous attempt to address this peculiarity by
introducing a new flag[4].

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220805222126.142525-3-jeffxu@google.com/
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221202013404.163143-3-jeffxu@google.com/
[2]: https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/blob/9eb0b7e5826fc76cad7b025bc46f267d4a8784cb/src/util/misc.c#L114
[3]: https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/pull/366
[4]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230714114753.170814-1-david@readahead.eu/

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@...tonmail.com>
---

* v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240611231409.3899809-1-jeffxu@chromium.org/
* v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240524033933.135049-1-jeffxu@google.com/
* v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240513191544.94754-1-pobrn@protonmail.com/

This fourth version returns to removing the inconsistency as opposed to documenting
its existence, with the same code change as v1 but with a somewhat extended commit
message. This is sent because I believe it is worth at least a try; it can be easily
reverted if bigger application breakages are discovered than initially imagined.

---
 mm/memfd.c                                 | 9 ++++-----
 tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memfd.c b/mm/memfd.c
index 7d8d3ab3fa37..8b7f6afee21d 100644
--- a/mm/memfd.c
+++ b/mm/memfd.c
@@ -356,12 +356,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(memfd_create,
 
 		inode->i_mode &= ~0111;
 		file_seals = memfd_file_seals_ptr(file);
-		if (file_seals) {
-			*file_seals &= ~F_SEAL_SEAL;
+		if (file_seals)
 			*file_seals |= F_SEAL_EXEC;
-		}
-	} else if (flags & MFD_ALLOW_SEALING) {
-		/* MFD_EXEC and MFD_ALLOW_SEALING are set */
+	}
+
+	if (flags & MFD_ALLOW_SEALING) {
 		file_seals = memfd_file_seals_ptr(file);
 		if (file_seals)
 			*file_seals &= ~F_SEAL_SEAL;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 95af2d78fd31..7b78329f65b6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -1151,7 +1151,7 @@ static void test_noexec_seal(void)
 			    mfd_def_size,
 			    MFD_CLOEXEC | MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL);
 	mfd_assert_mode(fd, 0666);
-	mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_EXEC);
+	mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SEAL | F_SEAL_EXEC);
 	mfd_fail_chmod(fd, 0777);
 	close(fd);
 }
-- 
2.45.2