Re: call_usermodehelper in containers

[Ian Kent]

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 14:45 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 14:36 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 12:43 +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On 2016/02/18 11:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ccing The containers list because a related discussion is
> > > > > happening
> > > > > there
> > > > > and somehow this thread has never made it there.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 18:28 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > > > On 11/15, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I don't understand that one.  Having a preforked thread
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > environment that can act like kthreadd in terms of
> > > > > > > > spawning
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > helpers works and is simple.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Forgive me replying to such an old thread but ...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > After realizing workqueues can't be used to pre-create
> > > > > > threads
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > usermode helpers I've returned to look at this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If someone can wind up with a good implementation I will be
> > > > > happy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Can't we ask ->child_reaper to create the non-daemonized
> > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > with the "right" ->nsproxy, ->fs, etc?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Eric, do you think this approach would be sufficient too?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Probably wouldn't be quite right for user namespaces but
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > what's needed for other cases?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It certainly has the advantage of not having to maintain a
> > > > > > plague
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > processes waiting around to execute helpers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That certainly sounds attractive.  Especially for the case of
> > > > > everyone
> > > > > who wants to set a core pattern in a container.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am fuzzy on all of the details right now, but what I do
> > > > > remember
> > > > > is
> > > > > that in the kernel the user mode helper concepts when they
> > > > > attempted
> > > > > to
> > > > > scrub a processes environment were quite error prone until we
> > > > > managed to
> > > > > get kthreadd(pid 2) on the scene which always had a clean
> > > > > environment.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we are going to tie this kind of thing to the pid namespace
> > > > > I
> > > > > recommend simplying denying it if you are in a user namespace
> > > > > without
> > > > > an approrpriate pid namespace.  AKA simply not allowing thigns
> > > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > setup
> > > > > if current->pid_ns->user_ns != current->user_ns.
> > > > > 
> > > > Can't be handled by simple capability like
> > > > CAP_SYS_USERMODEHELPER ?
> 
> I wasn't talking about a capability I was talking about how to
> identify
> where the user mode helper lives.
> 
> > > > User_ns check seems not to allow core-dump-cather in host will
> > > > not
> > > > work if user_ns is used.
> 
> The bottom line is all of this approaches non-sense if user namespaces
> are not used.  If you just have a pid namespace or a mount namespace
> (or
> perhaps both) and your fire off a new fangled user mode helper you get
> a
> deep problem.  The user space process started to handle your core dump
> or
> your nfs callback will have a full set of capabilities (because it is
> still in the root user namespace).  With a full set of capabilities
> and perhaps a little luck there is no containment.
> 
> The imperfect solution that currently exists for the core dump helper
> is to provide enough information to the user space application that
> it can query and find out the context of the core dumping application
> and keep everything in that application sandbox if it so desires.
> I expect something similar could be done for other user mode helper
> style callbacks.
> 
> To make starting the user space application other than how we do today
> needs a good argument that you are you can allow a lesser privileged
> process set things up and that it can be exploited to gain privielge.
> 
> > > I don't think so but I'm not sure.
> > > 
> > > The approach I was talking about assumes the init process of the
> > > caller
> > > (say within a container, corresponding to ->child_reaper) is an
> > > appropriate template for umh thread execution.
> > > 
> > > But I don't think that covers the case where unshare has created
> > > different namespaces, like a mount namespace for example.
> > > 
> > > The current workqueue sub system can't be used to pre-create a
> > > thread
> > > to
> > > be used for umh execution so, either is needs changes or yet
> > > another
> > > mechanism needs to be implemented.
> > > 
> > > For uses other than core dumping capturing a reference to the
> > > struct
> > > pid
> > > of the environment init process and using that as an execution
> > > template
> > > should be sufficient and takes care of environment existence
> > > problems
> > > with some extra checks, not to mention eliminating the need for a
> > > potentially huge number of kernel threads needing to be created to
> > > provide execution templates.
> > > 
> > > Where to store this and how to access it when needed is another
> > > problem.
> > > 
> > > Not sure a usermode helper capability is the right thing either as
> > > I
> > > thought one important use of user namespaces was to allow
> > > unprivileged
> > > users to perform operations they otherwise can't.
> > > 
> > > Maybe a CAP_SYS_USERNSCOREDUMP or similar would be sensible ....
> > > 
> > > Still an appropriate execution template would be needed and IIUC
> > > we
> > > can't trust getting that from within a user created namespace
> > > environment.
> > 
> > Perhaps, if a struct cred could be captured at some appropriate time
> > that could be used to cater for user namespaces.
> > 
> > Eric, do you think that would be possible to do without allowing
> > users
> > to circumvent security?
> 
> The general problem with capturing less than a full process is that
> we always mess it up and forget to capture something important.
> 
> In a lot of ways this is a very simpilar problem to setting up an at
> job
> or a cron job.  You build a script you test it then you tell at to run
> it at a certain time and it fails, because your working environment
> did
> not include something important that was in your actuall environment.
> 
> Unfortunately in this case the failures we are talking about are
> container escapes and privilege escalation, so we do need to tread
> carefully.
> 
> We might be able to safely define the context as the context of the
> currently running init process (Which we can identifiy with a struct
> pid).  Justifying that looks a little trickier but doable.

Right, that seems like a fairly straight forward thing to implement
based on Olegs' example patch.

I'll put together a series based on that approach.

Keep in mind that the patches in my previous posts for sub-system usage
are definitely wrong but I can use them (and they will be only an
initial example of how to use the mechanism) to verify that contained
execution happens. They will need to change.

I was thinking that also capturing a struct cred (although I need to
look more at the relationship between the process cred, and the nsproxy
locations) at a particular time combined with a double fork and exec
could allow inclusion of user namespace.

Perhaps at only one level deep, ie. only allowing the first user
namesapec created from init or from container and not user namespaces
created from within a user namespace (if I can work out how to identify
that case).

Again when these are captured and how to get at them when needed is
going to be a challenge.

> 
> After a mechanism is picked it simply becomes a case of making certain
> your permission checks for starting something are in sync with your
> mechanism.

Hopefully yourself and others can help with that, ;)

> 
> Personally I am a fan of the don't be clever and capture a kernel
> thread
> approach as it is very easy to see you what if any exploitation
> opportunities there are.  The justifications for something more clever
> is trickier.  Of course we do something that from this perspective
> would
> be considered ``clever'' today with kthreadd and user mode helpers.

Indeed, a good policy, but it seems the choice of the init process
context (of a given container) is fairly straight forward and much of
the tricky stuff and a good measure of checks may already be done in
thread creation and exec code.

As you have pointed out before this is a very difficult problem to deal
with .....

Ian