From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>, Nosh Minwalla <nosh@google.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <ovzxemul@gmail.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: require CAP_SYS_PTRACE for UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:01:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <273986A1-A4BE-4FE5-B547-49CAA44C6FD3@amacapital.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKOZuet+fgaJR72YwYrHFdFVSOo6EWpcT8jUoh7se4cZb0V2aw@mail.gmail.com>
> On Nov 5, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:56 AM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 08:39:26AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>>> I'm not suggesting that we fail userfaultfd(2) without CAP_SYS_PTRACE.
>>> That would, as you point out, break things. I'm talking about
>>> recording *whether* we had CAP_SYS_PTRACE in an internal flag in the
>>> uffd context when we create the thing --- and then, at ioctl time,
>>> checking that flag, not the caller's CAP_SYS_PTRACE, to see whether
>>> UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK should be made available. This way, the
>>> security check hinges on whether the caller *at create time* was
>>> privileged.
>>
>> Until now it wasn't clear to me you still wanted to do the permission
>> check in UFFDIO_API time, and you only intended to move the
>> "measurement" of the capability to the syscall.
>>
>> So you're suggesting to add more kernel complexity to code pending for
>> removal to achieve a theoretically more pure solution in the band-aid
>> required to defer the removal of the posix-breaking read
>> implementation of the uffd fork feature?
>
> And you're suggesting making a security check work weirdly unlike most
> other security checks because you hope it'll get removed one day?
> Temporary solutions aren't, and if something goes into the kernel at
> all, it's worth getting right. The general rule is that access checks
> happen at open time. The kernel has already been bitten by UFFD
> exempting itself from the normal rules (e.g., the
> read(2)-makes-a-file-descriptor thing) in the name of expediency.
> There shouldn't be any more exceptions.
I don’t think ioctl() checking permission is particularly unusual. In principle, it’s better than open for a retrofit — open didn’t capture this permission in the past, so adding it makes an existing capability stronger than it was, which isn’t fantastic.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-05 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-05 15:29 [PATCH 0/1] " Mike Rapoport
2019-11-05 15:29 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Mike Rapoport
2019-11-05 15:37 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-05 15:55 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-05 16:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-05 16:06 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-05 16:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-05 16:39 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-05 16:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-05 17:02 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-05 17:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-05 22:01 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2019-11-05 22:10 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-05 16:24 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-05 16:41 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-07 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-11-07 8:54 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-07 15:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-07 16:15 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-07 18:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-07 18:50 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-11-07 19:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-11-10 17:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-05 15:59 ` Aleksa Sarai
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=273986A1-A4BE-4FE5-B547-49CAA44C6FD3@amacapital.net \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nnk@google.com \
--cc=nosh@google.com \
--cc=ovzxemul@gmail.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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