From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932198AbbA3BaI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:30:08 -0500
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]:60520 "EHLO
	mail-ob0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752527AbbA3BaE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:30:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150128043832.GA2266262@mail.thefacebook.com>
References: <1421194829-28696-1-git-send-email-calvinowens@fb.com>
	<20150114152501.GB9820@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
	<20150114153323.GF2253@moon>
	<20150114204653.GA26698@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150114211613.GH2253@moon>
	<20150122024554.GB23762@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150124031544.GA1992748@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150126124731.GA26916@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
	<20150126210054.GG651@moon>
	<20150126154346.c63c512e5821e9e0ea31f759@linux-foundation.org>
	<20150128043832.GA2266262@mail.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:30:03 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dH1Gy8CrT_zyQ2SRg7REbHfUL1U
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+wa2-CCGaktPzDec=HF0CizP__HVVjZKcjGuJJOvLFyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] procfs: Always expose /proc/<pid>/map_files/ and
 make it readable
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
        Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com> wrote:
> On Monday 01/26 at 15:43 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:54 +0300 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:15:44PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
>> > > > Currently, /proc/<pid>/map_files/ is restricted to CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and
>> > > > is only exposed if CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is set. This interface
>> > > > is very useful for enumerating the files mapped into a process when
>> > > > the more verbose information in /proc/<pid>/maps is not needed.
>>
>> This is the main (actually only) justification for the patch, and it it
>> far too thin.  What does "not needed" mean.  Why can't people just use
>> /proc/pid/maps?
>
> The biggest difference is that if you do something like this:
>
>         fd = open("/stuff", O_BLAH);
>         map = mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_BLAH, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
>         close(fd);
>         unlink("/stuff");
>
> ...then map_files/ gives you a way to get a file descriptor for
> "/stuff", which you couldn't do with /proc/pid/maps.
>
> It's also something of a win if you just want to see what is mapped at a
> specific address, since you can just readlink() the symlink for the
> address range you care about and it will go grab the appropriate VMA and
> give you the answer. /proc/pid/maps requires walking the VMA tree, which
> is quite expensive for processes with many thousands of threads, even
> without the O(N^2) issue.
>
> (You have to know what address range you want though, since readdir() on
> map_files/ obviously has to walk the VMA tree just like /proc/N/maps.)
>
>> > > > This patch moves the folder out from behind CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, and
>> > > > removes the CAP_SYS_ADMIN restrictions. Following the links requires
>> > > > the ability to ptrace the process in question, so this doesn't allow
>> > > > an attacker to do anything they couldn't already do before.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>
>> > >
>> > > Cc +linux-api@
>> >
>> > Looks good to me, thanks! Though I would really appreciate if someone
>> > from security camp take a look as well.
>>
>> hm, who's that.  Kees comes to mind.
>>
>> And reviewers' task would be a heck of a lot easier if they knew what
>> /proc/pid/map_files actually does.  This:
>>
>> akpm3:/usr/src/25> grep -r map_files Documentation
>> akpm3:/usr/src/25>
>>
>> does not help.
>>
>> The 640708a2cff7f81 changelog says:
>>
>> :     This one behaves similarly to the /proc/<pid>/fd/ one - it contains
>> :     symlinks one for each mapping with file, the name of a symlink is
>> :     "vma->vm_start-vma->vm_end", the target is the file.  Opening a symlink
>> :     results in a file that point exactly to the same inode as them vma's one.
>> :
>> :     For example the ls -l of some arbitrary /proc/<pid>/map_files/
>> :
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80403000-7f8f80404000 -> /lib64/libc-2.5.so
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f8061e000-7f8f80620000 -> /lib64/libselinux.so.1
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80826000-7f8f80827000 -> /lib64/libacl.so.1.1.0
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80a2f000-7f8f80a30000 -> /lib64/librt-2.5.so
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80a30000-7f8f80a4c000 -> /lib64/ld-2.5.so
>>
>> afacit this info is also available in /proc/pid/maps, so things
>> shouldn't get worse if the /proc/pid/map_files permissions are at least
>> as restrictive as the /proc/pid/maps permissions.  Is that the case?
>> (Please add to changelog).
>
> Yes, the only difference is that you can follow the link as per above.
> I'll resend with a new message explaining that and the deletion thing.
>
>> There's one other problem here: we're assuming that the map_files
>> implementation doesn't have bugs.  If it does have bugs then relaxing
>> permissions like this will create new vulnerabilities.  And the
>> map_files implementation is surprisingly complex.  Is it bug-free?
>
> While I was messing with it I used it a good bit and didn't see any
> issues, although I didn't actively try to fuzz it or anything. I'd be
> happy to write something to test hammering it in weird ways if you like.
> I'm also happy to write testcases for namespaces.
>
> So far as security issues, as others have pointed out you can't follow
> the links unless you can ptrace the process in question, which seems
> like a pretty solid guarantee. As Cyrill pointed out in the discussion
> about the documentation, that's the same protection as /proc/N/fd/*, and
> those links function in the same way.

My concern here is that fd/* are connected as streams, and while that
has a certain level of badness as an external-to-the-process attacker,
PTRACE_MODE_READ is much weaker than PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH (which is
required for access to /proc/N/mem). Since these fds are the things
mapped into memory on a process, writing to them is a subset of access
to /proc/N/mem, and I don't feel that PTRACE_MODE_READ is sufficient.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kees Cook <keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] procfs: Always expose /proc/<pid>/map_files/ and
 make it readable
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:30:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+wa2-CCGaktPzDec=HF0CizP__HVVjZKcjGuJJOvLFyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1421194829-28696-1-git-send-email-calvinowens@fb.com>
	<20150114152501.GB9820@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
	<20150114153323.GF2253@moon>
	<20150114204653.GA26698@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150114211613.GH2253@moon>
	<20150122024554.GB23762@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150124031544.GA1992748@mail.thefacebook.com>
	<20150126124731.GA26916@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
	<20150126210054.GG651@moon>
	<20150126154346.c63c512e5821e9e0ea31f759@linux-foundation.org>
	<20150128043832.GA2266262@mail.thefacebook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150128043832.GA2266262-ZEWhMxyTXSP95iwofa7G/laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Calvin Owens <calvinowens-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill-oKw7cIdHH8eLwutG50LtGA@public.gmane.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>, Al Viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>, Peter Feiner <pfeiner-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Calvin Owens <calvinowens-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Monday 01/26 at 15:43 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:54 +0300 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 07:15:44PM -0800, Calvin Owens wrote:
>> > > > Currently, /proc/<pid>/map_files/ is restricted to CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and
>> > > > is only exposed if CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is set. This interface
>> > > > is very useful for enumerating the files mapped into a process when
>> > > > the more verbose information in /proc/<pid>/maps is not needed.
>>
>> This is the main (actually only) justification for the patch, and it it
>> far too thin.  What does "not needed" mean.  Why can't people just use
>> /proc/pid/maps?
>
> The biggest difference is that if you do something like this:
>
>         fd = open("/stuff", O_BLAH);
>         map = mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_BLAH, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
>         close(fd);
>         unlink("/stuff");
>
> ...then map_files/ gives you a way to get a file descriptor for
> "/stuff", which you couldn't do with /proc/pid/maps.
>
> It's also something of a win if you just want to see what is mapped at a
> specific address, since you can just readlink() the symlink for the
> address range you care about and it will go grab the appropriate VMA and
> give you the answer. /proc/pid/maps requires walking the VMA tree, which
> is quite expensive for processes with many thousands of threads, even
> without the O(N^2) issue.
>
> (You have to know what address range you want though, since readdir() on
> map_files/ obviously has to walk the VMA tree just like /proc/N/maps.)
>
>> > > > This patch moves the folder out from behind CHECKPOINT_RESTORE, and
>> > > > removes the CAP_SYS_ADMIN restrictions. Following the links requires
>> > > > the ability to ptrace the process in question, so this doesn't allow
>> > > > an attacker to do anything they couldn't already do before.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>
>> > >
>> > > Cc +linux-api@
>> >
>> > Looks good to me, thanks! Though I would really appreciate if someone
>> > from security camp take a look as well.
>>
>> hm, who's that.  Kees comes to mind.
>>
>> And reviewers' task would be a heck of a lot easier if they knew what
>> /proc/pid/map_files actually does.  This:
>>
>> akpm3:/usr/src/25> grep -r map_files Documentation
>> akpm3:/usr/src/25>
>>
>> does not help.
>>
>> The 640708a2cff7f81 changelog says:
>>
>> :     This one behaves similarly to the /proc/<pid>/fd/ one - it contains
>> :     symlinks one for each mapping with file, the name of a symlink is
>> :     "vma->vm_start-vma->vm_end", the target is the file.  Opening a symlink
>> :     results in a file that point exactly to the same inode as them vma's one.
>> :
>> :     For example the ls -l of some arbitrary /proc/<pid>/map_files/
>> :
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80403000-7f8f80404000 -> /lib64/libc-2.5.so
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f8061e000-7f8f80620000 -> /lib64/libselinux.so.1
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80826000-7f8f80827000 -> /lib64/libacl.so.1.1.0
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80a2f000-7f8f80a30000 -> /lib64/librt-2.5.so
>> :      | lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Aug 26 06:40 7f8f80a30000-7f8f80a4c000 -> /lib64/ld-2.5.so
>>
>> afacit this info is also available in /proc/pid/maps, so things
>> shouldn't get worse if the /proc/pid/map_files permissions are at least
>> as restrictive as the /proc/pid/maps permissions.  Is that the case?
>> (Please add to changelog).
>
> Yes, the only difference is that you can follow the link as per above.
> I'll resend with a new message explaining that and the deletion thing.
>
>> There's one other problem here: we're assuming that the map_files
>> implementation doesn't have bugs.  If it does have bugs then relaxing
>> permissions like this will create new vulnerabilities.  And the
>> map_files implementation is surprisingly complex.  Is it bug-free?
>
> While I was messing with it I used it a good bit and didn't see any
> issues, although I didn't actively try to fuzz it or anything. I'd be
> happy to write something to test hammering it in weird ways if you like.
> I'm also happy to write testcases for namespaces.
>
> So far as security issues, as others have pointed out you can't follow
> the links unless you can ptrace the process in question, which seems
> like a pretty solid guarantee. As Cyrill pointed out in the discussion
> about the documentation, that's the same protection as /proc/N/fd/*, and
> those links function in the same way.

My concern here is that fd/* are connected as streams, and while that
has a certain level of badness as an external-to-the-process attacker,
PTRACE_MODE_READ is much weaker than PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH (which is
required for access to /proc/N/mem). Since these fds are the things
mapped into memory on a process, writing to them is a subset of access
to /proc/N/mem, and I don't feel that PTRACE_MODE_READ is sufficient.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security