Re: [PATCH] procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de> writes:

>> Please verify but the ptrace issue that allowed processes in a container
>> to call setns on our processes should be fixed as of 4.10-rc1.  And the
>> change has been marked for backporting.
>
> ptrace(2) is not the only issue, the issue that we had in runC is that
> a process joining a namespace may have file descriptors that refer to
> the host filesystem. If the process joining is dumpable, a racing
> process inside the container can access those file descriptors through
> the /proc/[pid]/fd/... mechanism.
>
> See CVE-2016-9962.

Wow, I said that badly.  But the issue is ptrace_attach and the
ptrace_may_access checks.

>> AKA it should be this fix that removes the need for your dumpable setting.
>> bfedb589252c ("mm: Add a user_ns owner to mm_struct and fix ptrace permission checks")
>
> I will check, though from what I recall that patch doesn't fix the
> ptrace_may_access checks. Not to mention it won't help if the
> container doesn't have it's own user namespace.

That change very much is to the ptrace_may_access checks.

You are not playing with setgroups if you don't have your own user
namespace.  So I don't see how the other cases are relevant.

Going further there are only two namespaces that are only 3 pieces of
information that I see are relevant in this context.  The pid namespace,
the user namespace, and the process credentials.

You can not join a PID namespace you can only fork into one.

The user namespace is relevant in older kernels as joining a user
namespace would allow ptrace_has_cap check in ptrace_may_access
to pass.  After the change listed above that check does not start
passing until after exec.

The credentials on your process are relevant as changing those
allow the ptrace_may_access checks to start passing for other sets
of processes.



What I think I would do in the situation you describe is to
join what you are going to join.  Limit yourself to creating pid
namespaces with unshare.

If you are joining a user namespace set undumpable.
If you are creating a user namespace create it and then set undumpable.

fork your process into the new pid namespace.
change your pocesses credentials.
exec whatever you are execing, letting close_on_exec clean up for you.

>> Now with that said I believe we want to add the following change now
>> that dumpable is user namespace relative.  That will use not the
>> GLOBAL_ROOT_UID/GID but instead uid and gid 0 in the namespace
>> that dumpable is relative too.
>
> Sure, but that's tangential to the issue under discussion.

It is pretty much the only case I see worth considering.  Certainly I
don't see setgroups as a motivational example.

>> But ugh!  Your case is even more confused that I had first noticed.
>> Saying that a processes is undumpable is completely unnecessary
>> when you are entering into a new fresh user namespace.  Touching
>> setgroups at any point where there are other processes in the namespace
>> makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Currently in runC the ordering for mixed create-and-join namespaces is
> that we first join existing namespaces and _then_ create new ones. So
> we need to be non-dumpable to avoid the problem in CVE-2016-9962.

Yes mixed create and join is trickier than a pure create and use case,
and trickier than a pure join case.  But see above it looks quite doable
to me to avoid being vulnerable while using the existing permissions
even in the case you describe.

>> Clearing dumpable is to help not leak things
>> into a container when you call setns on a user namespace.
>
> It is also to help not leak things into a container when you join
> other namespaces. Most notably the PID namespace.

Except that you don't strictly join a PID namespace.  You set a context
for children to run in a different PID namespace.  So you are safe
from PID namespaces as long as you don't call fork.

>> +	if (mode != (S_IFDIR|S_IRUGO|S_IXUGO)) {
>
> I'd just like to draw your attention to this special case -- why is
> this special cased? What was the original reasoning behind it? Does it
> make sense for a non-dumpable process to allow someone to change the
> mode of some random /proc/[pid]/ directories?

This has nothing at all to do with changing modes and is all about
what uid/gid are set on the proc inode.   Usually it is the uid/gid
of the process in question but occassionally for undumpable processes
it is root/root to prevent people from accessing the files in question.

> I get the feeling that some of this logic is a bit iffy.

It looks like I forgot to carry forward the comment that explains that
case in my patch.  Something I need to fix before I merge it.

/*
 * Before the /proc/pid/status file was created the only way to read
 * the effective uid of a /process was to stat /proc/pid.  Reading
 * /proc/pid/status is slow enough that procps and other packages
 * kept stating /proc/pid.  To keep the rules in /proc simple I have
 * made this apply to all per process world readable and executable
 * directories.
 */

Or in short.  I broke ps when I removed all of the special cases, and to
fix ps I added the existing special case.  Not that the uid or gid of a
directory that the whole world can access matters.

Eric