[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:26:51 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Philippe Trébuchet <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
Thibaut S autereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
Yves-Alexis Perez <yves-alexis.perez@....gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add support for O_MAYEXEC
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 6, 2019 2:57:00 PM EDT Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Steve Grubb:
>>> Now with LD_AUDIT
>>> $ LD_AUDIT=/home/sgrubb/test/openflags/strip-flags.so.0 strace ./test
>>> 2>&1 | grep passwd openat(3, "passwd", O_RDONLY) = 4
>>>
>>> No O_CLOEXEC flag.
>>
>> I think you need to explain in detail why you consider this a problem.
>
> Because you can strip the O_MAYEXEC flag from being passed into the kernel.
> Once you do that, you defeat the security mechanism because it never gets
> invoked. The issue is that the only thing that knows _why_ something is being
> opened is user space. With this mechanism, you can attempt to pass this
> reason to the kernel so that it may see if policy permits this. But you can
> just remove the flag.
I’m with Florian here. Once you are executing code in a process, you could just emulate some other unapproved code. This series is not intended to provide the kind of absolute protection you’re imagining.
What the kernel *could* do is prevent mmapping a non-FMODE_EXEC file with PROT_EXEC, which would indeed have a real effect (in an iOS-like world, for example) but would break many, many things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
