Re: [PATCH 1/9] procfs: use flags to deny or allow access to /proc/<pid>/$entry
From: Kees Cook
Date: Tue May 27 2014 - 14:38:59 EST
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add the deny or allow flags, so we can perform proper permission checks
> and set the result accordingly. These flags are needed in case we have
> to cache the result of permission checks that are done during ->open()
> time. Later during ->read(), we can decide to allow or deny the read().
>
> The pid entries that need these flags are:
> /proc/<pid>/stat
> /proc/<pid>/wchan
> /proc/<pid>/maps (will be handled in next patches).
>
> These files are world readable, userspace depend on that. To prevent
> ASLR leaks and to avoid breaking userspace, we follow this scheme:
>
> a) Perform permission checks during ->open()
> b) Cache the result of a) and return success
> c) Recheck the cached result during ->read()
> d) If cached == PID_ENTRY_DENY:
> then we replace the sensitive fields with zeros, userspace won't
> break and sensitive fields are protected.
>
> These flags are internal to /proc/<pid>/*
Since this complex area of behavior has seen a lot of changes, I think
I'd really like to see some tests in tools/testsing/selftests/
somewhere that actually codify what the expected behaviors should be.
We have a lot of corner cases, a lot of userspace behaviors to retain,
and given how fragile this area has been, I'd love to avoid seeing
regressions. It seems like we need to test file permissions, open/read
permissions, contents, etc, under many different cases (priv, unpriv,
passing between priv/unpriv and unpriv/priv, ptrace checks, etc).
If we could do a "make run_tests" in a selftests subdirectory, it'd be
much easier to a) validate these fixes, and b) avoid regressions.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/