[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] fs: block cross-uid sticky symlinks
    Hi Eric,

    On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 08:50:53PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    > The name of the sysctl is horrible it is a double negative, which
    > makes thinking about it hard.

    Hmm, I see your point, the "safe" value is "weak: not". I was trying to
    be descriptive without needing a "true" value, but I guess that's silly;
    we already have things like randomize_va_space set to "2" by default, etc.
    What would you suggest instead? "protected_sticky_symlinks" (and reverse
    the default and test logic)?

    > Why not simply put each user in a different mount namespace and have separate
    > /tmp directories per user? That works today, with no kernel changes.

    The key here is "no kernel changes" -- trying to isolate every user
    and service from each other using different mount namespaces will not
    work quickly in current distributions. Even doing bind-mount tricks
    to keep /tmp away from different users is overkill, especially when
    you have situations like "screen" using a common /tmp directory tree
    (in the setuid version), etc. Things (correctly) expect to share /tmp
    in some cases. However, this one kernel change will allow everything
    to continue without userspace overhead and without breaking anything
    terribly. Using containers will probably be the future, but I want to
    solve this in the general case today.

    > Placing this in cap_inode_follow_link is horrible naming. There is nothing
    > capabilities about this. Either this needs to go into one or several
    > of the security modules or this needs to go into the core vfs.

    My thinking was that most of the LSMs call down to commoncaps first,
    so it's a single place to put this. When I was looking at this code
    originally, I thought that if it doesn't go in security_inode_follow_link,
    then a new function would be added to the VFS and both callers
    of security_inode_follow_link would need to call it just before
    security_inode_follow_link. It seemed like putting it in there reduced
    duplication of logic.

    However, on closer examination, it seems that this code could live in
    __do_follow_link instead.

    error = security_inode_follow_link(path.dentry, &nd);
    if (error)
    goto exit_dput;
    error = __do_follow_link(&path, &nd, &cookie);
    err = security_inode_follow_link(path->dentry, nd);
    if (err)
    goto loop;
    err = __do_follow_link(path, nd, &cookie);

    What would you suggest for the best approach here?

    > I can't argue with taking action to close the too frequently security
    > issues in /tmp, but this changes appears to be unnecessary, difficult
    > to maintain, and difficult to understand.

    Well, we disagree about "unnecessary". :) Finding an easy to maintain
    solution is my goal here, and if it's difficult to understand, then I need
    to fix that too. What could use better clarification?



    Kees Cook
    Ubuntu Security Team

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-31 06:15    [W:0.034 / U:7.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site