|
Message-ID: <CABqD9hYXKhX1=064DpbaBTAVd8-g43jKAPvtsbxEUTbgC1MPxg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:13:05 -0500 From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com> Subject: Re: Docs for PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > Hi, > > As-is, this could probably live in > Documentation/security/no-new-privs.txt (maybe with some examples > added). Or Documentation/prctl/no-new-privs.txt Just a decision between what it does and how you get to it, but I'd think either would make sense! > As for a manpage section, I think Michael Kerrisk would happily add a > section for PR_[SG]ET_NO_NEW_PRIVS to prctl if this could be > summarized into a paragraph or two. > > (And this reminds me I should send an update for the seccomp section > in the prctl manpage too.) Faster on the draw than me - thanks! > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: >> Hi all- >> >> As promised (although belatedly), I wrote up some proposed documentation >> for the no_new_privs feature. What should I do with it? I don't speak >> groff/troff/whatever man pages are written in. >> >> I would be happy to license this text appropriately for whatever tree >> it might end up in. In the mean time, it's GPLv2+. >> >> --- cut here --- >> >> The execve system call can grant a newly-started program privileges >> that its parent did not have. The most obvious examples are >> setuid/setgid programs and file capabilities. To prevent the parent >> program from gaining these privileges as well, the kernel and user >> code must be careful to prevent the parent from doing anything that >> could subvert the child. For example: >> >> - The dynamic loader handles LD_* environment variables differently >> if a program is setuid. >> - chroot is disallowed to unprivileged processes, since it would >> allow /etc/passwd to be replaced from the point of view of a process >> that inherited chroot. >> - The exec code has special handling for ptrace. >> >> These are all ad-hoc fixes. The no_new_privs bit (since Linux 3.5) is >> a new, generic mechanism to make it safe for a process to modify its >> execution environment in a manner that persists across execve. Any >> task can set no_new_privs. Once the bit is set, it is inherited >> across fork, clone, and execve and cannot be unset. With no_new_privs >> set, execve promises not to grant the privilege to do anything that >> could not have been done without the execve call. For example, the >> setuid and setgid bits will no longer change the uid or gid; file >> capabilities will not add to the permitted set, and LSMs will not >> relax constraints after execve. >> >> Note that no_new_privs does not prevent privilege changes that do not >> involve execve. An appropriately privileged task can still call >> setuid(2) and receive SCM_RIGHTS datagrams. >> >> There are two main use cases for no_new_privs so far: >> >> - Filters installed for the seccomp mode 2 sandbox persist across >> execve and can change the behavior of newly-executed programs. >> Unprivileged users are therefore only allowed to install such filters >> if no_new_privs is set. >> >> - By itself, no_new_privs can be used to reduce the attack surface >> available to an unprivileged user. If everything running with a given >> uid has no_new_privs set, then that uid will be unable to escalate its >> privileges by directly attacking setuid, setgid, and fcap-using >> binaries; it will need to compromise something without the >> no_new_privs bit set first. >> >> In the future, other potentially dangerous kernel features could >> become available to unprivileged tasks if no_new_privs is set. In >> principle, several options to unshare(2) and clone(2) would be safe >> when no_new_privs is set, and no_new_privs + chroot is considerable >> less dangerous than chroot by itself. >> >> --- cut here --- >> >> --Andy > > > > -- > Kees Cook > Chrome OS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.