All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: keescook@chromium.org (Kees Cook)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V4 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:57:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKnB555Tu-kNPpjRe76r8RpDghxqO1499aXa2M6Bnf3pQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a36af00bd25e0cfe7eeea37bd99b82b9350de1e0.1504591358.git.rgb@redhat.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> Introduce macros cap_gained, cap_grew, cap_full to make the use of the
> negation of is_subset() easier to read and analyse.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> Acked-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>

I still find these hard to read, but it IS better than it was before. ;)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

> ---
>  security/commoncap.c |   18 +++++++++++-------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> index 927fe93..cf6e2b0 100644
> --- a/security/commoncap.c
> +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> @@ -505,6 +505,12 @@ static void handle_privileged_root(struct linux_binprm *bprm, bool has_cap,
>                 *effective = true;
>  }
>
> +#define __cap_gained(field, target, source) \
> +       !cap_issubset(target->cap_##field, source->cap_##field)
> +#define __cap_grew(target, source, cred) \
> +       !cap_issubset(cred->cap_##target, cred->cap_##source)
> +#define __cap_full(field, cred) \
> +       cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, cred->cap_##field)
>
>  /**
>   * cap_bprm_set_creds - Set up the proposed credentials for execve().
>   * @bprm: The execution parameters, including the proposed creds
> @@ -533,10 +539,9 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>         handle_privileged_root(bprm, has_cap, &effective, root_uid);
>
>         /* if we have fs caps, clear dangerous personality flags */
> -       if (!cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, old->cap_permitted))
> +       if (__cap_gained(permitted, new, old))
>                 bprm->per_clear |= PER_CLEAR_ON_SETID;
>
> -
>         /* Don't let someone trace a set[ug]id/setpcap binary with the revised
>          * credentials unless they have the appropriate permit.
>          *
> @@ -544,8 +549,7 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>          */
>         is_setid = !uid_eq(new->euid, old->uid) || !gid_eq(new->egid, old->gid);
>
> -       if ((is_setid ||
> -            !cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, old->cap_permitted)) &&
> +       if ((is_setid || __cap_gained(permitted, new, old)) &&
>             ((bprm->unsafe & ~LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE) ||
>              !ptracer_capable(current, new->user_ns))) {
>                 /* downgrade; they get no more than they had, and maybe less */
> @@ -595,8 +599,8 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>          * Number 1 above might fail if you don't have a full bset, but I think
>          * that is interesting information to audit.
>          */
> -       if (!cap_issubset(new->cap_effective, new->cap_ambient)) {
> -               if (!cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, new->cap_effective) ||
> +       if (__cap_grew(effective, ambient, new)) {
> +               if (!__cap_full(effective, new) ||
>                     !uid_eq(new->euid, root_uid) || !uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid) ||
>                     issecure(SECURE_NOROOT)) {
>                         ret = audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, new, old);
> @@ -616,7 +620,7 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>                 bprm->cap_elevated = 1;
>         } else if (!uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid)) {
>                 if (effective ||
> -                   !cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, new->cap_ambient))
> +                   __cap_grew(permitted, ambient, new))
>                         bprm->cap_elevated = 1;
>         }
>
> --
> 1.7.1
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-audit@redhat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:57:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKnB555Tu-kNPpjRe76r8RpDghxqO1499aXa2M6Bnf3pQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a36af00bd25e0cfe7eeea37bd99b82b9350de1e0.1504591358.git.rgb@redhat.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> Introduce macros cap_gained, cap_grew, cap_full to make the use of the
> negation of is_subset() easier to read and analyse.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> Acked-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>

I still find these hard to read, but it IS better than it was before. ;)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

> ---
>  security/commoncap.c |   18 +++++++++++-------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> index 927fe93..cf6e2b0 100644
> --- a/security/commoncap.c
> +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> @@ -505,6 +505,12 @@ static void handle_privileged_root(struct linux_binprm *bprm, bool has_cap,
>                 *effective = true;
>  }
>
> +#define __cap_gained(field, target, source) \
> +       !cap_issubset(target->cap_##field, source->cap_##field)
> +#define __cap_grew(target, source, cred) \
> +       !cap_issubset(cred->cap_##target, cred->cap_##source)
> +#define __cap_full(field, cred) \
> +       cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, cred->cap_##field)
>
>  /**
>   * cap_bprm_set_creds - Set up the proposed credentials for execve().
>   * @bprm: The execution parameters, including the proposed creds
> @@ -533,10 +539,9 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>         handle_privileged_root(bprm, has_cap, &effective, root_uid);
>
>         /* if we have fs caps, clear dangerous personality flags */
> -       if (!cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, old->cap_permitted))
> +       if (__cap_gained(permitted, new, old))
>                 bprm->per_clear |= PER_CLEAR_ON_SETID;
>
> -
>         /* Don't let someone trace a set[ug]id/setpcap binary with the revised
>          * credentials unless they have the appropriate permit.
>          *
> @@ -544,8 +549,7 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>          */
>         is_setid = !uid_eq(new->euid, old->uid) || !gid_eq(new->egid, old->gid);
>
> -       if ((is_setid ||
> -            !cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, old->cap_permitted)) &&
> +       if ((is_setid || __cap_gained(permitted, new, old)) &&
>             ((bprm->unsafe & ~LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE) ||
>              !ptracer_capable(current, new->user_ns))) {
>                 /* downgrade; they get no more than they had, and maybe less */
> @@ -595,8 +599,8 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>          * Number 1 above might fail if you don't have a full bset, but I think
>          * that is interesting information to audit.
>          */
> -       if (!cap_issubset(new->cap_effective, new->cap_ambient)) {
> -               if (!cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, new->cap_effective) ||
> +       if (__cap_grew(effective, ambient, new)) {
> +               if (!__cap_full(effective, new) ||
>                     !uid_eq(new->euid, root_uid) || !uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid) ||
>                     issecure(SECURE_NOROOT)) {
>                         ret = audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, new, old);
> @@ -616,7 +620,7 @@ int cap_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>                 bprm->cap_elevated = 1;
>         } else if (!uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid)) {
>                 if (effective ||
> -                   !cap_issubset(new->cap_permitted, new->cap_ambient))
> +                   __cap_grew(permitted, ambient, new))
>                         bprm->cap_elevated = 1;
>         }
>
> --
> 1.7.1
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-07 19:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-05  6:46 [PATCH V4 00/10] capabilities: do not audit log BPRM_FCAPS on set*id Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 01/10] capabilities: factor out cap_bprm_set_creds privileged root Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-06  6:05   ` James Morris
2017-09-06  6:05     ` James Morris
2017-09-07 19:42   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-07 19:42     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-07 19:57   ` Kees Cook [this message]
2017-09-07 19:57     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 03/10] capabilities: rename has_cap to has_fcap Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:15   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:15     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 04/10] capabilities: use root_priveleged inline to clarify logic Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:18   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:18     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 05/10] capabilities: use intuitive names for id changes Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:22   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:22     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 06/10] capabilities: move audit log decision to function Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:23   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:23     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 07/10] capabilities: remove a layer of conditional logic Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:26   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:26     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 08/10] capabilities: invert logic for clarity Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:27   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:27     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 09/10] capabilities: fix logic for effective root or real root Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:34   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:34     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-20 22:11   ` Paul Moore
2017-09-20 22:11     ` Paul Moore
2017-09-20 22:25     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-20 22:25       ` Kees Cook
2017-09-20 22:27       ` Paul Moore
2017-09-20 22:27         ` Paul Moore
2017-09-05  6:46 ` [PATCH V4 10/10] capabilities: audit log other surprising conditions Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-05  6:46   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-08 18:36   ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 18:36     ` Kees Cook
2017-09-20 22:22   ` Paul Moore
2017-09-20 22:22     ` Paul Moore
2017-09-08 17:02 ` [PATCH V4 00/10] capabilities: do not audit log BPRM_FCAPS on set*id Paul Moore
2017-09-08 17:02   ` Paul Moore
2017-09-14  5:54   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-14  5:54     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-09-14  6:46     ` Paul Moore
2017-09-14  6:46       ` Paul Moore
2017-09-14  6:49       ` Paul Moore
2017-09-14  6:49         ` Paul Moore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGXu5jKnB555Tu-kNPpjRe76r8RpDghxqO1499aXa2M6Bnf3pQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.