[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091229223631.GB22578@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:36:31 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>,
Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> >> > Execute != read. The executable file may contain secrets which must not
> >> > be available to the user running the setuid program. If you fail the
> >> > setuid, the user will be able to ptrace() and then the secret is
> >> > revealed.
> >> >
> >> > It's amazing how many security holes appear from what seems like a very
> >> > simple request.
> >>
> >> Do we have a security hole in nosuid mount option?
> >> Can someone write a patch to fix it?
> >
> > If a setuid app can read a key when its erroneously not set setuid then
> > the user can read it too.
> >
> > Anything you can do with ptrace you can do yourself !
>
> Now that I think about it this is really something completely separate
> from setuid. This is about being able to read the text segment with
> ptrace when you on have execute permissions on the file.
>
> I just skimmed through fs/exec.c and we set the undumpable process
> flag in that case so ptrace should not work in that case.
And in fact you can't do a new ptrace_attach, but if you're already
tracing the task when it execs the unreadable-but-executable file,
then the ptrace can continue.
Just looking at the code, it appears 2.2 was the same way (though I
could be missing where it used to enforce that).
So, is that intended? What exactly would we do about it if not?
Just refuse exec of a unreadable-but-executable file if we're
being traced?
> So short of a bug in the implementation we have no security hole.
>
> Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists