LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	John Reck <jreck@google.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
	Lei.Yang@windriver.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	marcandre.lureau@redhat.com,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 resend 1/2] mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:01:02 -0800
Message-ID: <20181111040102.GA204245@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <543A5181-3A16-438E-B372-97BEC48A74F8@amacapital.net>

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:40:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 10, 2018, at 6:38 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 02:18:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> On Nov 10, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:11:27AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Thanks Andy for your thoughts, my comments below:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>>> I don't see it as warty, different seals will work differently. It works
> >>>>>> quite well for our usecase, and since Linux is all about solving real
> >>>>>> problems in the real work, it would be useful to have it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> - causes a probably-observable effect in the file mode in F_GETFL.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Wouldn't that be the right thing to observe anyway?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> - causes reopen to fail.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> So this concern isn't true anymore if we make reopen fail only for WRITE
> >>>>>> opens as Daniel suggested. I will make this change so that the security fix
> >>>>>> is a clean one.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> - does *not* affect other struct files that may already exist on the same inode.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> TBH if you really want to block all writes to the file, then you want
> >>>>>> F_SEAL_WRITE, not this seal. The usecase we have is the fd is sent over IPC
> >>>>>> to another process and we want to prevent any new writes in the receiver
> >>>>>> side. There is no way this other receiving process can have an existing fd
> >>>>>> unless it was already sent one without the seal applied.  The proposed seal
> >>>>>> could be renamed to F_SEAL_FD_WRITE if that is preferred.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> - mysteriously malfunctions if you try to set it again on another struct
> >>>>>>> file that already exists
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I didn't follow this, could you explain more?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> - probably is insecure when used on hugetlbfs.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The usecase is not expected to prevent all writes, indeed the usecase
> >>>>>> requires existing mmaps to continue to be able to write into the memory map.
> >>>>>> So would you call that a security issue too? The use of the seal wants to
> >>>>>> allow existing mmap regions to be continue to be written into (I mentioned
> >>>>>> more details in the cover letter).
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I see two reasonable solutions:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 1. Don’t fiddle with the struct file at all. Instead make the inode flag
> >>>>>>> work by itself.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Currently, the various VFS paths check only the struct file's f_mode to deny
> >>>>>> writes of already opened files. This would mean more checking in all those
> >>>>>> paths (and modification of all those paths).
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Anyway going with that idea, we could
> >>>>>> 1. call deny_write_access(file) from the memfd's seal path which decrements
> >>>>>> the inode::i_writecount.
> >>>>>> 2. call get_write_access(inode) in the various VFS paths in addition to
> >>>>>> checking for FMODE_*WRITE and deny the write (incase i_writecount is negative)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> That will prevent both reopens, and writes from succeeding. However I worry a
> >>>>>> bit about 2 not being too familiar with VFS internals, about what the
> >>>>>> consequences of doing that may be.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> IMHO, modifying both the inode and the struct file separately is fine,
> >>>>> since they mean different things. In regular filesystems, it's fine to
> >>>>> have a read-write open file description for a file whose inode grants
> >>>>> write permission to nobody. Speaking of which: is fchmod enough to
> >>>>> prevent this attack?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Well, yes and no. fchmod does prevent reopening the file RW, but
> >>>> anyone with permissions (owner, CAP_FOWNER) can just fchmod it back. A
> >>>> seal is supposed to be irrevocable, so fchmod-as-inode-seal probably
> >>>> isn't sufficient by itself. While it might be good enough for Android
> >>>> (in the sense that it'll prevent RW-reopens from other security
> >>>> contexts to which we send an open memfd file), it's still conceptually
> >>>> ugly, IMHO. Let's go with the original approach of just tweaking the
> >>>> inode so that open-for-write is permanently blocked.
> >>> 
> >>> Agreed with the idea of modifying both file and inode flags. I was thinking
> >>> modifying i_mode may do the trick but as you pointed it probably could be
> >>> reverted by chmod or some other attribute setting calls.
> >>> 
> >>> OTOH, I don't think deny_write_access(file) can be reverted from any
> >>> user-facing path so we could do that from the seal to prevent the future
> >>> opens in write mode. I'll double check and test that out tomorrow.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> This seems considerably more complicated and more fragile than needed. Just
> >> add a new F_SEAL_WRITE_FUTURE.  Grep for F_SEAL_WRITE and make the _FUTURE
> >> variant work exactly like it with two exceptions:
> >> 
> >> - shmem_mmap and maybe its hugetlbfs equivalent should check for it and act
> >> accordingly.
> > 
> > There's more to it than that, we also need to block future writes through
> > write syscall, so we have to hook into the write path too once the seal is
> > set, not just the mmap. That means we have to add code in mm/shmem.c to do
> > that in all those handlers, to check for the seal (and hope we didn't miss a
> > file_operations handler). Is that what you are proposing?
> 
> The existing code already does this. That’s why I suggested grepping :)

Ahh sorry I see your point now. Ok let me try this approach. Thank you!
Probably we can make this work this way and it is sufficient.

> > 
> > Also, it means we have to keep CONFIG_TMPFS enabled so that the
> > shmem_file_operations write handlers like write_iter are hooked up. Currently
> > memfd works even with !CONFIG_TMPFS.
> 
> If so, that sounds like it may already be a bug.

Actually, its not a bug. If CONFIG_TMPFS is disabled, then IIRC write syscall
will be prevented anyway and then the mmap is the only way. I'll double check
that once I work on this idea.

> > 
> >> - add_seals won’t need the wait_for_pins and mapping_deny_write logic.
> >> 
> >> That really should be all that’s needed.
> > 
> > It seems a fair idea what you're saying. But I don't see how its less
> > complex.. IMO its far more simple to have VFS do the denial of the operations
> > based on the flags of its datastructures.. and if it works (which I will test
> > to be sure it will), then we should be good.
> 
> I agree it’s complicated, but the code is already written.  You should just
> need to adjust some masks.
> 

Right.

> > 
> > Btw by any chance, are you also coming by LPC conference next week?
> > 
> 
> No.  I’d like to, but I can’t make the trip this year.

Ok, no worries.

thanks,

- Joel


  reply index

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-08  4:15 Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-08  4:15 ` [PATCH v3 resend 2/2] selftests/memfd: Add tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal Joel Fernandes (Google)
2018-11-09  8:49 ` [PATCH v3 resend 1/2] mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd Joel Fernandes
2018-11-09 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2018-11-10  3:54   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-09 21:06 ` Jann Horn
2018-11-09 21:19   ` Jann Horn
2018-11-10  3:20     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-10  6:05       ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-10 18:24         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-10 18:45           ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-10 19:11             ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-10 19:55               ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-10 22:09               ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-10 22:18                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-11  2:38                   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-11  3:40                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-11  4:01                       ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2018-11-11  8:09                       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-11  8:30                         ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-11 15:14                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-11 17:36                             ` Joel Fernandes
     [not found]       ` <CAKOZuethC7+YrRyyGciUCfhSSa9cCcAFJ8g_qEw9uh3TBbyOcg@mail.gmail.com>
2018-11-10 17:10         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-09 21:40   ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-09 20:02     ` Michael Tirado
2018-11-10  1:49       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-09 22:20   ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-09 22:37     ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-09 22:42       ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-09 23:14         ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-10  1:36           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-11-09 23:46   ` Joel Fernandes

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=20181111040102.GA204245@google.com \
    --to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=Lei.Yang@windriver.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=jreck@google.com \
    --cc=khalid.aziz@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=tkjos@google.com \
    --cc=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git