netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 17/26] tracing: allow eBPF programs to be attached to events

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:32:41 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 17/26] tracing: allow eBPF programs to be
 attached to events

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that fixing this should be a prerequisite for merging,
>>>> since the risk is so small.  Nonetheless, it would be nice.  (This
>>>> family of attacks has lead to several root vulnerabilities in the
>>>> past.)
>>>
>>> Ok. I think keeping a track of pid between open and write is kinda
>>> ugly.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> TBH, I would just add a comment to the open implementation saying
>> that, if unprivileged or less privileged open is allowed, then this
>> needs to be fixed.
>
> ok. will do.
>
>>> Should we add some new CAP flag and check it for all file
>>> ops? Another option is to conditionally make open() of tracing
>>> files as cloexec...
>>
>> That won't help.  The same attack can be done with SCM_RIGHTS, and
>> cloexec can be cleared.
>
> ouch, can we then make ebpf FDs and may be debugfs FDs
> not passable at all? Otherwise it feels that generality and
> flexibility of FDs is becoming a burden.

I'm not sure there's much of a general problem.  The issue is when
there's an fd for which write(2) (or other
assumed-to-not-check-permissions calls like read, pread, pwrite, etc)
depend on context.  This is historically an issue for netlink and
various /proc files.

--Andy
--
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