Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user notifier

[Christian Brauner]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:31:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:08:57AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > This adds a seccomp notifier ioctl which allows for the listener to "add"
> > file descriptors to a process which originated a seccomp user
> > notification. This allows calls like mount, and mknod to be "implemented",
> > as the return value, and the arguments are data in memory. On the other
> > hand, calls like connect can be "implemented" using pidfd_getfd.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there are calls which return file descriptors, like
> > open, which are vulnerable to TOC-TOU attacks, and require that the
> > more privileged supervisor can inspect the argument, and perform the
> > syscall on behalf of the process generating the notifiation. This
> > allows the file descriptor generated from that open call to be
> > returned to the calling process.
> > 
> > In addition, there is funcitonality to allow for replacement of
> > specific file descriptors, following dup2-like semantics.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Matt Denton <mpdenton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This looks mostly really clean. When I've got more brain tomorrow I want to
> double-check the locking, but I think the use of notify_lock and being
> in the ioctl fully protects everything from any use-after-free-like
> issues.
> 
> Notes below...
> 
> > +/* valid flags for seccomp_notif_addfd */
> > +#define SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD	(1UL << 0) /* Specify remote fd */
> 
> Nit: please use BIT()

Fwiw, I don't think we can use BIT() in uapi headers, see:

commit 23b2c96fad21886c53f5e1a4ffedd45ddd2e85ba
Author: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Oct 24 23:25:39 2019 +0200

    seccomp: rework define for SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE

    Switch from BIT(0) to (1UL << 0).

> 
> > @@ -735,6 +770,41 @@ static u64 seccomp_next_notify_id(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> >  	return filter->notif->next_id++;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void seccomp_handle_addfd(struct seccomp_kaddfd *addfd)
> > +{
> > +	struct socket *sock;
> > +	int ret, err;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Remove the notification, and reset the list pointers, indicating
> > +	 * that it has been handled.
> > +	 */
> > +	list_del_init(&addfd->list);
> > +
> > +	ret = security_file_receive(addfd->file);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	if (addfd->fd == -1) {
> > +		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(addfd->flags);
> > +		if (ret >= 0)
> > +			fd_install(ret, get_file(addfd->file));
> > +	} else {
> > +		ret = replace_fd(addfd->fd, addfd->file, addfd->flags);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* These are the semantics from copying FDs via SCM_RIGHTS */
> > +	sock = sock_from_file(addfd->file, &err);
> > +	if (sock) {
> > +		sock_update_netprioidx(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> > +		sock_update_classid(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> > +	}
> 
> This made my eye twitch. ;) I see this is borrowed from
> scm_detach_fds()... this really feels like the kind of thing that will
> quickly go out of sync. I think this "receive an fd" logic needs to be
> lifted out of scm_detach_fds() so it and seccomp can share it. I'm not
> sure how to parameterize it quite right, though. Perhaps:
> 
> int file_receive(int fd, unsigned long flags, struct file *file)
> {
> 	struct socket *sock;
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = security_file_receive(file);
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
> 
> 	/* Install the file. */
> 	if (fd == -1) {
> 		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(flags);
> 		if (ret >= 0)
> 			fd_install(ret, get_file(file));
> 	} else {
> 		ret = replace_fd(fd, file, flags);
> 	}
> 
> 	/* Bump the usage count. */
> 	sock = sock_from_file(addfd->file, &err);
> 	if (sock) {
> 		sock_update_netprioidx(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> 		sock_update_classid(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> 	}
> 
> 	return ret;
> }
> 
> 
> static void seccomp_handle_addfd(struct seccomp_kaddfd *addfd)
> {
> 	/*
> 	 * Remove the notification, and reset the list pointers, indicating
> 	 * that it has been handled.
> 	 */
> 	list_del_init(&addfd->list);
> 	addfd->ret = file_receive(addfd->fd, addfd->flags, addfd->file);
> 	complete(&addfd->completion);
> }
> 
> scm_detach_fds()
> 	...
> 	for (i=0, cmfptr=(__force int __user *)CMSG_DATA(cm); i<fdmax;
>              i++, cmfptr++)
> 	{
> 
> 		err = file_receive(-1, MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC & msg->msg_flags
>                                           ? O_CLOEXEC : 0, fp[i]);
> 		if (err < 0)
> 			break;
> 		err = put_user(err, cmfptr);
> 		if (err)
> 			/* wat */
> 	}
> 	...
> 
> I'm not sure on the put_user() failure, though. We could check early
> for faults with a put_user(0, cmfptr) before the file_receive() call, or
> we could just ignore it? I'm not sure what SCM does here. I guess
> worst-case:
> 
> int file_receive(int fd, unsigned long flags, struct file *file,
> 		 int __user *fdptr)
> {
> 		...
> 		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(flags);
> 		if (ret >= 0) {
> 			if (cmfptr) {
> 				int err;
> 
> 	                	err = put_user(ret, cmfptr);
> 				if (err) {
> 					put_unused_fd(ret);
> 					return err;
> 				}
> 			}
> 			fd_install(ret, get_file(file));
> 		}
> 		...
> }
> 
> > @@ -763,14 +835,31 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
> >  	/*
> >  	 * This is where we wait for a reply from userspace.
> >  	 */
> > +wait:
> >  	err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> >  	mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
> >  	if (err == 0) {
> > +		/* Check if we were woken up by a addfd message */
> > +		addfd = list_first_entry_or_null(&n.addfd,
> > +						 struct seccomp_kaddfd, list);
> > +		if (addfd && n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
> > +			seccomp_handle_addfd(addfd);
> > +			mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> > +			goto wait;
> > +		}
> >  		ret = n.val;
> >  		err = n.error;
> >  		flags = n.flags;
> >  	}
> 
> This feels like it needs to be done differently, but when I tried to
> make it "proper" loop, I think it got more ugly:
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 	  	err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> 	  	mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
> 	  	if (err == 0) {
> 			/* Check if we were woken up by a addfd message */
> 			addfd = list_first_entry_or_null(&n.addfd,
> 							 struct seccomp_kaddfd, list);
> 			if (addfd && n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
> 				seccomp_handle_addfd(addfd);
> 				mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> 				continue;
> 			}
> 	 		ret = n.val;
> 	 		err = n.error;
> 	 		flags = n.flags;
> 		}
> 		break;
> 	}
> 
> So, I guess it's fine how you have it. :)
> 
> >  
> > +	/* If there were any pending addfd calls, clear them out */
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(addfd, tmp, &n.addfd, list) {
> > +		/* The process went away before we got a chance to handle it */
> > +		addfd->ret = -ESRCH;
> > +		list_del_init(&addfd->list);
> > +		complete(&addfd->completion);
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Note that it's possible the listener died in between the time when
> >  	 * we were notified of a respons (or a signal) and when we were able to
> > @@ -1174,6 +1263,95 @@ static long seccomp_notify_id_valid(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static long seccomp_notify_addfd(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> > +				 struct seccomp_notif_addfd __user *uaddfd)
> > +{
> > +	struct seccomp_notif_addfd addfd;
> > +	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif;
> > +	struct seccomp_kaddfd kaddfd;
> > +	u64 size;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = get_user(size, &uaddfd->size);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = copy_struct_from_user(&addfd, sizeof(addfd), uaddfd, size);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (addfd.newfd_flags & ~O_CLOEXEC)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (addfd.flags & ~SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (addfd.newfd && !(addfd.flags & SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	kaddfd.file = fget(addfd.srcfd);
> > +	if (!kaddfd.file)
> > +		return -EBADF;
> > +
> > +	kaddfd.flags = addfd.newfd_flags;
> > +	kaddfd.fd = (addfd.flags & SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD) ?
> > +		    addfd.newfd : -1;
> 
> Given that -1 is already illegal, do we need SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD?
> Could a -1 for newfd just be used instead?
> 
> > +	init_completion(&kaddfd.completion);
> > +
> > +	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&filter->notify_lock);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	knotif = find_notification(filter, addfd.id);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We do not want to allow for FD injection to occur before the
> > +	 * notification has been picked up by a userspace handler, or after
> > +	 * the notification has been replied to.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!knotif) {
> > +		ret = -ENOENT;
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (knotif->state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_SENT) {
> > +		ret = -EINPROGRESS;
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	list_add(&kaddfd.list, &knotif->addfd);
> > +	complete(&knotif->ready);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
> > +
> > +	/* Now we wait for it to be processed */
> > +	ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&kaddfd.completion);
> > +	if (ret == 0) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * We had a successful completion. The other side has already
> > +		 * removed us from the addfd queue, and
> > +		 * wait_for_completion_interruptible has a memory barrier.
> > +		 */
> > +		ret = kaddfd.ret;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&filter->notify_lock);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Even though we were woken up by a signal, and not a successful
> > +	 * completion, a completion may have happened in the mean time.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (list_empty(&kaddfd.list))
> > +		ret = kaddfd.ret;
> > +	else
> > +		list_del(&kaddfd.list);
> > +
> > +out_unlock:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
> > +out:
> > +	fput(kaddfd.file);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static long seccomp_notify_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> >  				 unsigned long arg)
> >  {
> > @@ -1187,6 +1365,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> >  		return seccomp_notify_send(filter, buf);
> >  	case SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID:
> >  		return seccomp_notify_id_valid(filter, buf);
> > +	case SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD:
> > +		return seccomp_notify_addfd(filter, buf);
> >  	default:
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> Whee! :)
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook