[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: chroot(2) and bind mounts as non-root
    On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Colin Walters <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 10:55 -0800, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
    >> I'm genuinely confused whether all these concerns are valid with file
    >> capabilities.
    >> Consider (let's say luser is some user that I want to be active inside
    >> the chroot, but I don't want to allow regular login to my system):
    > Then we already have different deployment scenarios.  You seem to be
    > imagining a system where some user has an environment preconfigured by a
    > system administrator.  My constraint (read my previous posts) is that
    > the functionality must be available "out of the box" on a mainstream
    > "distro" such as RHEL or Debian to any uid.  I don't even want to
    > require addition to some magical group (that in reality is often a root
    > backdoor anyways).

    I don't read any issues with this in your original post. What I read
    there is that you want to run a build in a chroot environment. Are you
    also implying that the user gets to build this chroot filesystem from
    nothing - without any privileges - or are you assuming that the root
    user provides some sort of template into which the user adds
    build-relevant files?

    If the former, then yes I think you are going to have a very hard
    time. If the latter then I still don't see the core problem...

    >> root> setcap cap_sys_chroot=ep /tmp/launcher
    >> Is there a need for privileged binaries within /tmp/chroot? If not,
    >> how might they get there (without help from root, always presuming I
    >> can prevent luser from logging in outside of this chroot'd
    >> environment)?
    > First of all, as I mentioned in my original mail (and is still in the
    > Subject line), chroot(2) *almost* gets me what I want - except I need
    > the ability to at least mount /proc, and being able to do bind mounts is
    > necessary to use /dev.
    > But let's just ignore the bind mounts for a second and pretend
    > cap_sys_chroot is enough.  Is your suggestion that we could distribute a
    > copy of /usr/sbin/chroot that grants cap_sys_chroot via file caps a
    > secure thing to add to util-linux?  Or we could just add it to
    > coreutils?

    Before reaching that finish line, my suggestions/questions are trying
    to get to the bottom of why this is believed impossible.

    > See the attached shell script for an attack that should work against
    > *any* setuid binary that uses glibc.  I wrote this without looking at
    > other exploits on the internet, just reading the glibc sources - mainly
    > for my own edification.
    > It turns out in this case glibc trusts the contents of /etc, and in
    > particular /etc/  So all I need to do is make a shared
    > library that just runs /bin/bash as a __attribute__ ((constructor)), and
    > when the glibc dynamic linker is loading /bin/su that I've hardlinked
    > into the chroot, game over:
    > $ cp /usr/sbin/chroot /usr/local/bin/fcaps-chroot
    > $ sudo setcap cap_sys_chroot=ep /usr/local/bin/fcaps-chroot
    > $ ./
    > $ fcaps-chroot mychroot
    > (now inside the chroot, but still uid=500)

    So, you are saying that if I can explain how to prevent this from working:

    > $ echo /lib64/ > /etc/

    And prevent this from being possible:

    > $ su -
    > uid=500; euid=0; starting /bin/bash

    You'll have what you want?

    Or are there some other constraints not mentioned?



    > # id
    > uid=0 gid=500 groups=500
    > The glibc linker also doesn't check that e.g. /lib64/ is owned
    > by root - clearly I could just replace that with whatever I want.  But
    > this is less typing.  Note glibc isn't buggy here, it was designed in a
    > world where unprivileged users can't chroot.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-18 02:25    [W:0.027 / U:8.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site