Re: [PATCH 1/9] procfs: use flags to deny or allow access to /proc/<pid>/$entry

[Djalal Harouni]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:54AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:38:54AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Ok, sounds good!
> >
> >> 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).
> > Yes, nice.
> >
> >> 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.
> > Ok!
> >
> > Since I'm working on this on my free time and when time permits, please
> > give me some days! I'll try to handle the cases I've discussed here.
> >
> > Now Kees, some of these files are still world readable and affected:
> > smaps, maps ... I know, it's a matter of suid binary on your distro, and
> > every one can exploit it. So what to do: make the tests public or write
> > the tests and fix these entries then at last make the tests public ?
> 
> I expect these tests to be public -- there is nothing secret about how
> things are currently vulnerable. I think the priv vs unpriv tests can
> be emulated (without root setuid) using a prctl(PR_SET_DUMPABLE, 0)
> call which should give you similar protections.
Ok, thanks for the hint!

> > Where should I send the tests ?
> 
> They should be part of the patch series, and live in the
> tools/testing/selftests/ tree of the kernel. There are plenty of
> examples in there. If you have the tests as the first set of patches,
> then you can show which tests start passing with each additional fix.
> I would break the tests up into "what is expected to work now" that
> all pass, and then add all the cases that are currently a problem that
> will all fail. Then as more of the fixes land from your series, more
> of those tests will pass until everything is passing.
Ok, will follow and do that. Thank you Kees!

> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security

-- 
Djalal Harouni
http://opendz.org
--
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/