On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 05:38:51PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 03:48:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 09:28:56PM +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > The wake lock/unlock sysfs interfaces check that the writer must has
> > > CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND capability. But the checking logic can be bypassed
> > > by opening sysfs file within an unprivileged process and then writing
> > > the file within a privileged process. The tricking way has been exposed
> > > by Andy Lutomirski in CVE-2013-1959.
> >
> > Don't you mean "open by privileged and then written by unprivileged?"
> > Or if not, exactly how is this a problem? You check the capabilities
> > when you do the write and if that is not allowed then, well
> >
>
> Sorry for I didn't provide clear explanation.
>
> The privileged means CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND but not file permission. The file
> permission
> has already relaxed for non-root user. Then the expected behavior is that
> non-root
> process must has CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND capability for writing wake_lock sysfs.
>
> But, the CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND restrict can be bypassed:
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> int fd, ret = 0;
>
> fd = open("/sys/power/wake_lock", O_RDWR);
> if (fd < 0)
> err(1, "open wake_lock");
>
> if (dup2(fd, 1) != 1) // overwrite the stdout with wake_lock
> err(1, "dup2");
> sleep(1);
> execl("./string", "string"); //string has capability
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> This program is an unpriviledged process (has no CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND), it opened
> wake_lock sysfs and overwrited stdout. Then it executes the "string" program
> that has CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND.
That's the problem right there, do not give CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND rights to
"string". If any user can run that program, there's nothing the kernel
can do about this, right? Just don't allow that program on the system :)
> The string program writes to stdout, which means that it writes to
> wake_lock. So an unpriviledged opener can trick an priviledged writer
> for writing sysfs.
That sounds like a userspace program that was somehow given incorrect
rights by the admin, and a user is taking advantage of it. That's not
the kernel's fault.
> > And you are checking the namespace of the person trying to do the write
> > when the write happens, which is correct here, right?
> >
> > If you really want to mess with wake locks in a namespaced environment,
> > then put it in a real namespaced environment, which is {HUGE HINT} not
> > sysfs.
> >
>
> I don't want to mess with wake locks in namespace.
Neither do I :)
so all should be fine, don't allow crazy executables with odd
permissions to be run by any user and you should be fine. That's always
been the case, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
