[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170117152919.GA4640@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:29:19 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@...mni.ethz.ch>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Make static usermode helper binaries constant
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:19:11AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:13:47AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:25:55PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 05:50:31PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of usermode helper binaries that are "hard coded" in
> > > > the kernel today, so mark them as "const" to make it harder for someone
> > > > to change where the variables point to.
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > > --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpbios/core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpbios/core.c
> > > > @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ static struct completion unload_sem;
> > > > */
> > > > static int pnp_dock_event(int dock, struct pnp_docking_station_info *info)
> > > > {
> > > > + static char const sbin_pnpbios[] = "/sbin/pnpbios";
> > > > char *argv[3], **envp, *buf, *scratch;
> > > > int i = 0, value;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -112,7 +113,7 @@ static int pnp_dock_event(int dock, struct pnp_docking_station_info *info)
> > > > * integrated into the driver core and use the usual infrastructure
> > > > * like sysfs and uevents
> > > > */
> > > > - argv[0] = "/sbin/pnpbios";
> > > > + argv[0] = (char *)sbin_pnpbios;
> > >
> > > So here and elsewhere, can attackers write to argv[0] instead of to the
> > > memory where the string lives?
> >
> > Yes, they could, it would be a very "tight" race to do that (have to
> > write after the assignment and before the call_usermodehelper_exec()
> > runs). However, the kernel does not run argv[0], it just passes it to
> > the binary you specify in path, so for this example, the correct program
> > would still be run by the kernel.
>
> In this case it's argv[0] that will be passed to call_usermodehelper as
> path, but.... OK, this argv array and the various function call
> arguments are all just data on the stack, so I guess it's all about
> equivalent.
Kind of, nice catch, I'll change the call to usermodehelper to use
sbin_pnpbios here, as that's the right thing to do.
> So we're assuming an attacker that can write to a static location in
> memory but can't write to the right part of the stack at the right time.
> I'm no expert at this kind of thing but it seems plausible that
> assumption could apply in cases that matter.
And again, if you really are worried about this, just use the new
kconfig option that allows you to filter all of this in userspace :)
thanks,
greg k-h
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.
