From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Kevin Locke <kevin@kevinlocke.name>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Check __FMODE_EXEC instead of in_execve for LSMs
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:50:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202401241348.1A2860EB58@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1tcxtEwWgxSUqLDcYbrkY=UM3hz22A0BTvTYq4BGpM8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:40:49PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:47:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 12:15, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmpf, and frustratingly Ubuntu (and Debian) still builds with
> > > > CONFIG_USELIB, even though it was reported[2] to them almost 4 years ago.
> >
> > For completeness, Fedora hasn't had CONFIG_USELIB for a while now.
> >
> > > Well, we could just remove the __FMODE_EXEC from uselib.
> > >
> > > It's kind of wrong anyway.
> >
> > Yeah.
> >
> > > So I think just removing __FMODE_EXEC would just do the
> > > RightThing(tm), and changes nothing for any sane situation.
> >
> > Agreed about these:
> >
> > - fs/fcntl.c is just doing a bitfield sanity check.
> >
> > - nfs_open_permission_mask(), as you say, is only checking for
> > unreadable case.
> >
> > - fsnotify would also see uselib() as a read, but afaict,
> > that's what it would see for an mmap(), so this should
> > be functionally safe.
> >
> > This one, though, I need some more time to examine:
> >
> > - AppArmor, TOMOYO, and LandLock will see uselib() as an
> > open-for-read, so that might still be a problem? As you
> > say, it's more of a mmap() call, but that would mean
> > adding something a call like security_mmap_file() into
> > uselib()...
> >
> > The issue isn't an insane "support uselib() under AppArmor" case, but
> > rather "Can uselib() be used to bypass exec/mmap checks?"
> >
> > This totally untested patch might give appropriate coverage:
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index d179abb78a1c..0c9265312c8d 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(uselib, const char __user *, library)
> > if (IS_ERR(file))
> > goto out;
> >
> > + error = security_mmap_file(file, PROT_READ | PROT_EXEC, MAP_FIXED | MAP_SHARED);
> > + if (error)
> > + goto exit;
>
> Call path from here is:
>
> sys_uselib -> load_elf_library -> elf_load -> elf_map -> vm_mmap ->
> vm_mmap_pgoff
>
> Call path for normal mmap is:
>
> sys_mmap_pgoff -> ksys_mmap_pgoff -> vm_mmap_pgoff
>
> So I think the call paths converge before any real security checks
> happen, and the check you're suggesting should be superfluous. (There
> is some weird audit call in ksys_mmap_pgoff() but that's just to
> record the FD number, so I guess that doesn't matter.)
Yeah, I was just noticing this. I was over thinking. :) It does look
like all that is needed is to remove __FMODE_EXEC.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-24 19:22 Kees Cook
2024-01-24 19:39 ` Kevin Locke
2024-01-24 19:51 ` Kees Cook
2024-01-24 19:58 ` Jann Horn
2024-01-24 20:15 ` Kees Cook
2024-01-24 20:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-01-24 20:51 ` Jann Horn
2024-01-24 21:32 ` Kees Cook
2024-01-24 21:35 ` Kees Cook
2024-01-24 21:40 ` Jann Horn
2024-01-24 21:50 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2024-01-25 14:34 ` Tetsuo Handa
2024-01-25 14:59 ` Jann Horn
2024-01-25 16:38 ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-01-27 4:53 ` John Johansen
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=202401241348.1A2860EB58@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kevin@kevinlocke.name \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=takedakn@nttdata.co.jp \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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