Re: [PATCH 4/5] kprobes: Do not expose probe addresses to non-CAP_SYSLOG

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 06:00:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 4:26 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The kprobe show() functions were using "current"'s creds instead
> > of the file opener's creds for kallsyms visibility. Fix to use
> > seq_file->file->f_cred.
> 
> Side note: I have a distinct - but despite that possibly quite
> incorrect - memory that I've discussed with somebody several years ago
> about making "current_cred()" simply warn in any IO context.
> 
> IOW, we could have read and write just increment/decrement a
> per-thread counter, and have current_cred() do a WARN_ON_ONCE() if
> it's called with that counter incremented.

That does sound familiar. I can't find a thread on it, but my search
abilities are poor. :) So an increment/decrement in all the IO-related
syscalls, or were you thinking of some other location?

> The issue of ioctl's is a bit less obvious - there are reasons to
> argue those should also use open-time credentials, but on the other
> hand I think it's reasonable to pass a file descriptor to a suid app
> in order for that app to do things that the normal user cannot.
>
> But read/write are dangerous because of the "it's so easy to fool suid
> apps to read/write stdin/stdout".
>
> So pread/pwrite/ioctl/splice etc are things that suid applications
> very much do on purpose to affect a file descriptor. But plain
> read/write are things that might be accidental and used by attack
> vectors.

So probably just start with read/write and tighten it over time, if we
find other clear places, leaving ioctl/pread/pwrite/splice alone.

> If somebody is interested in looking into things like that, it might
> be a good idea to have kernel threads with that counter incremented by
> 
> Just throwing this idea out in case somebody wants to try it. It's not
> just "current_cred", of course. It's all the current_cred_xxx() users
> too. But it may be that there are a ton of false positives because
> maybe some code on purpose ends up doing things like just *comparing*
> current_cred with file->f_cred and then that would warn too.

Yeah ... and I think the kthread test should answer that question.

-- 
Kees Cook