Re: VFS, NFS security bug? Should CAP_MKNOD andCAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE be added to CAP_FS_MASK?

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 03:53:34PM +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> It seems that CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE were forgotten to be
> added to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x and to CAP_FS_MASK in
> linux-2.4.x. Both capabilities affects file system and can be
> considered file system capabilities.

Sounds right to me--I'd expect rootsquash to guarantee that new device
nodes can't be created from the network.  Cc'ing random people from the
git log for include/linux/capability.h in hopes they can help.

--b.

(Also: my copy of mknod(2) claims "Linux... does not have the CAP_MKNOD
capability".  I assume the manpage is out of date?)

> 
> Let's look at linux-2.6.x.
> 
> In include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_SET is defined to contain
> following capabilities:
> CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER,
> CAP_FSETID and CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE.
> 
> And CAP_NFSD_SET is defined to be the same plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> 
> So, both CAP_FS_SET and CAP_NFSD_SET doesn't include CAP_MKNOD and
> CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE.
> 
> Also include/linux/capability.h there are cap_drop_fs_set(...),
> cap_raise_fs_set(...),
> cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) and cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) inline functions that return
> corresponding capabilities sets.
> 
> Let's look how these functions are used.
> 
> In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) calls
> cap_raise_nfsd_set(...) and
> cap_drop_nfsd_set(...) to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from
> effective set of current nfsd process.
> 
> And in file security/commoncap.c function cap_task_post_setuid(...) calls
> cap_drop_fs_set(...) and cap_raise_fs_set(...) to change effective set
> of current task
> when (current->fsuid != old_ruid).
> 
> In linux-2.4.x the story is the same.
> 
> In file include/linux/capability.h CAP_FS_MASK is defined to contain
> CAP_CHOWN, CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, CAP_FOWNER, CAP_FSETID
> capabilities.
> 
> And in file fs/nfsd/auth.c CAP_NFSD_MASK is defined to be same as CAP_FS_MASK
> plus CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> 
> In file fs/nfsd/auth.c function nfsd_setuser(...) uses CAP_NFSD_MASK
> to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current
> nfsd process.
> 
> And CAP_FS_MASK used in file kernel/sys.c in function sys_setfsuid(...)
> to add/exclude corresponding capabilities to/from effective set of current task.
> 
> This can be exploited (and I have succesfully tried it).
> 
> Suppose you have NFS-share exported even with root_squash option.
> If one client was compromised, local root can set CAP_MKNOD to some
> local user's process. Then that user can execute mknod to create a device
> that will be owned by that user, e.g. block device file for /dev/hda hard drive.
> 
> And he can create that device file on NFS-share (even exported with root_squash
> option). After that he can someway (ssh, cgi) execute code on another nfs client
> or the server to modify it's filesystem. It will be possible because
> he owns that
> device file on nfs share.
> 
> The problem is because CAP_MKNOD allows that user to successfully execute
> vfs_mknod(...) function on local host, and that function will call corresponding
> function in nfs module which sends request to NFS server. And nfsd will not
> drop CAP_MKNOD in nfsd_setuser(...) function when impersonating to that user.
> 
> Of course, NFS-shares can be mounted with nodev option, but they should be
> placed on separate partition on NFS-server, so even on server that partition
> is mounted with nodev option too.
> 
> So I suggest to add CAP_MKNOD and CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE to CAP_FS_MASK
> in linux-2.4.x and to CAP_FS_MASK_B0 in linux-2.6.x.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/