linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "security@kernel.org" <security@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>,
	Janis Danisevskis <jdanis@google.com>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: add LSM hook for writes to readonly memory
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:32:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160928233256.GB2040@pc.thejh.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUc8VVyPKuGrS7PxBRHCsVhXbXaiEOmwjgHrzTRiXPT9Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2046 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:22:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net> wrote:
> > SELinux attempts to make it possible to whitelist trustworthy sources of
> > code that may be mapped into memory, and Android makes use of this feature.
> > To prevent an attacker from bypassing this by modifying R+X memory through
> > /proc/$pid/mem or PTRACE_POKETEXT, it is necessary to call a security hook
> > in check_vma_flags().
> 
> If selinux policy allows PTRACE_POKETEXT, is it really so bad for that
> to result in code execution?

Have a look at __ptrace_may_access():

	/* Don't let security modules deny introspection */
	if (same_thread_group(task, current))
		return 0;

This means thread A can attach to thread B and poke its memory, and SELinux
can't do anything about it.

I guess another perspective on this would be that it's a problem that
interfaces usable for poking user memory are subject to introspection rules
(as opposed to e.g. /proc/self/maps, where it is actually useful).

> > -struct mm_struct *proc_mem_open(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
> > +struct mm_struct *proc_mem_open(struct inode *inode,
> > +                               const struct cred **object_cred,
> > +                               unsigned int mode)
> >  {
> 
> Why are you passing object_cred all over the place like this?  You
> have an inode, and an inode implies a task.

But the task's mm and objective credentials can change, and only mm_access()
holds the cred_guard_mutex during the mm lookup. Although, if the objective
credentials change because of a setuid execution, being able to poke in the
old mm would be pretty harmless...


> For that matter, would it possibly make sense to use MEMCG's mm->owner
> and get rid of object_cred entirely?

I guess it might.


> I can see this causing issues in
> strange threading cases, e.g. accessing your own /proc/$$/mem vs
> another thread in your process's.

Can you elaborate on that?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-28 23:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-28 22:54 [PATCH v2 0/3] fix SELinux W^X bypass via ptrace Jann Horn
2016-09-28 22:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] fs/exec: don't force writing memory access Jann Horn
2016-09-29 16:09   ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-28 22:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: add LSM hook for writes to readonly memory Jann Horn
2016-09-28 23:22   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-28 23:32     ` Jann Horn [this message]
2016-09-28 23:44       ` Jann Horn
2016-11-03  2:25       ` Jann Horn
2016-09-29  6:25   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-09-28 22:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] selinux: require EXECMEM for forced ptrace poke Jann Horn
2016-09-29  6:19   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-09-29 16:38   ` Stephen Smalley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160928233256.GB2040@pc.thejh.net \
    --to=jann@thejh.net \
    --cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
    --cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
    --cc=jdanis@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=nnk@google.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=security@kernel.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox