linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] pidfs: implement file handle support

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: <05af74a9-51cc-4914-b285-b50d69758de7@e43.eu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:03:08 +0100
From: Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@....eu>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 christian@...uner.io, paul@...l-moore.com, bluca@...ian.org,
 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] pidfs: implement file handle support


On 12/11/2024 14:10, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply (I'm recovering from a lengthy illness.).
No worries on my part, and I hope you're feeling better!
> I like the idea in general. I think this is really useful. A few of my
> thoughts but I need input from Amir and Jeff:
>
> * In the last patch of the series you already implement decoding of
>   pidfd file handles by adding a .fh_to_dentry export_operations method.
>
>   There are a few things to consider because of how open_by_handle_at()
>   works.
>
>   - open_by_handle_at() needs to be restricted so it only creates pidfds
>     from pidfs file handles that resolve to a struct pid that is
>     reachable in the caller's pid namespace. In other words, it should
>     mirror pidfd_open().
>
>     Put another way, open_by_handle_at() must not be usable to open
>     arbitrary pids to prevent a container from constructing a pidfd file
>     handle for a process that lives outside it's pid namespace
>     hierarchy.
>
>     With this restriction in place open_by_handle_at() can be available
>     to let unprivileged processes open pidfd file handles.
>
>     Related to that, I don't think we need to make open_by_handle_at()
>     open arbitrary pidfd file handles via CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH. Simply
>     because any process in the initial pid namespace can open any other
>     process via pidfd_open() anyway because pid namespaces are
>     hierarchical.
>
>     IOW, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH must not override the restriction that the
>     provided pidfs file handle must be reachable from the caller's pid
>     namespace.

The pid_vnr(pid) == 0 check catches this case -- we return an error to the
caller if there isn't a pid mapping in the caller's namespace

Perhaps I should have called this out explicitly.

>   - open_by_handle_at() uses may_decode_fh() to determine whether it's
>     possible to decode a file handle as an unprivileged user. The
>     current checks don't make sense for pidfs. Conceptually, I think
>     there don't need to place any restrictions based on global
>     CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, owning user namespace of the superblock or
>     mount on pidfs file handles.
>
>     The only restriction that matters is that the requested pidfs file
>     handle is reachable from the caller's pid namespace.

I wonder if this could be handled through an addition to export_operations'
flags member?

>   - A pidfd always has exactly a single inode and a single dentry.
>     There's no aliases.
>
>   - Generally, in my naive opinion, I think that decoding pidfs file
>     handles should be a lot simpler than decoding regular path based
>     file handles. Because there should be no need to verify any
>     ancestors, or reconnect paths. Pidfs also doesn't have directory
>     inodes, only regular inodes. In other words, any dentry is
>     acceptable.
>
>     Essentially, the only thing we need is for exportfs_decode_fh_raw()
>     to verify that the provided pidfs file handle is resolvable in the
>     caller's pid namespace. If so we're done. The challenge is how to
>     nicely plumb this into the code without it sticking out like a sore
>     thumb.

Theoretically you should be able to use PIDFD_SELF as well (assuming that
makes its way into mainline this release :-)) but I am a bit concerned about
potentially polluting the open_by_handle_at logic with pidfd specificities.

>   - Pidfs should not be exportable via NFS. It doesn't make sense.

Hmm, I guess I might have made that possible, though I'm certainly not
familiar enough with the internals of nfsd to be able to test if I've done
so.

I guess probably this case calls for another export_ops flag? Not like we're
short on them

Thanks,
    - Erin