[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240729.cho6saegoHei@digikod.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:09:56 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] keys: Restrict KEYCTL_SESSION_TO_PARENT according to
ptrace_may_access()
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 03:49:29PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:59 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> > A process can modify its parent's credentials with
> > KEYCTL_SESSION_TO_PARENT when their EUID and EGID are the same. This
> > doesn't take into account all possible access controls.
> >
> > Enforce the same access checks as for impersonating a process.
> >
> > The current credentials checks are untouch because they check against
> > EUID and EGID, whereas ptrace_may_access() checks against UID and GID.
>
> FWIW, my understanding is that the intended usecase of
> KEYCTL_SESSION_TO_PARENT is that command-line tools (like "keyctl
> new_session" and "e4crypt new_session") want to be able to change the
> keyring of the parent process that spawned them (which I think is
> usually a shell?); and Yama LSM, which I think is fairly widely used
> at this point, by default prevents a child process from using
> PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH on its parent.
About Yama, the patched keyctl_session_to_parent() function already
check if the current's and the parent's credentials are the same before
this new ptrace_may_access() check. So this change should be OK with
Yama and most use cases.
>
> I think KEYCTL_SESSION_TO_PARENT is not a great design, but I'm not
> sure if we can improve it much without risking some breakage.
>
I think this is a security issue that a process can change another
process's credentials. If the main use cases is for shell commands, it
should be OK.
The alternative would be to restore the key_session_to_parent LSM hook
[1], and update most LSMs to block this kind of credential tampering,
which will lead to the same result but with only partial users being
protected.
[1] commit 3011a344cdcd ("security: remove dead hook key_session_to_parent")
Powered by blists - more mailing lists