Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 19:08:18 -0700 From: Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@...onical.com> To: cve-assign@...re.org Cc: siddharth@...hat.com, fw@...eb.enyo.de, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request for glusterfs: fuse check return value of setuid On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:42:10PM -0400, cve-assign@...re.org wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254488 > > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10780/ > > https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/commit/b5ceb1a9de9af563b0f91e2a3138fa5a95cad9f6 > - the only goal in calling setuid is to execute /bin/mount (or > /bin/umount) from a process with both an effective UID of 0 and a > real UID of 0. This is a requirement of the util-linux mount > program. See the "if we're really root and aren't running setuid" > comment in mount.c. Otherwise, for the types of mount usage in > question, mount would print "mount: only root can do that" and > exit. This is an excellent analysis but does it hinge upon the util-linux "aren't running suid" behaviour in mount? Does it matter that the busybox mount, for example, doesn't appear to have this same requirement? I don't see any corresponding code in: http://sources.debian.net/src/busybox/1:1.22.0-15/util-linux/mount.c/ I'm certainly no busybox expert but nothing looks like a corresponding uid == 0 && euid == 0 check. The call to sanitize_env_if_suid() even suggests setuid execution is expected and anticipated. Thanks Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.