On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:12:38AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:27:54PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 11:27:30PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On June 9, 2020 10:55:42 PM GMT+02:00, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >LOL. And while we were debating this, hch just went and cleaned stuff up:
> > > >
> > > >2618d530dd8b ("net/scm: cleanup scm_detach_fds")
> > > >
> > > >So, um, yeah, now my proposal is actually even closer to what we already
> > > >have there. We just add the replace_fd() logic to __scm_install_fd() and
> > > >we're done with it.
> > >
> > > Cool, you have a link? :)
> >
> > How about this:
> >
> Thank you.
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=devel/seccomp/addfd/v3.1&id=bb94586b9e7cc88e915536c2e9fb991a97b62416
> >
> > --
> > Kees Cook
>
> + if (ufd) {
> + error = put_user(new_fd, ufd);
> + if (error) {
> + put_unused_fd(new_fd);
> + return error;
> + }
> + }
> I'm fairly sure this introduces a bug[1] if the user does:
Ah, sorry, I missed this before I posted my "v3.2" tree link.
>
> struct msghdr msg = {};
> struct cmsghdr *cmsg;
> struct iovec io = {
> .iov_base = &c,
> .iov_len = 1,
> };
>
> msg.msg_iov = &io;
> msg.msg_iovlen = 1;
> msg.msg_control = NULL;
> msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(buf);
>
> recvmsg(sock, &msg, 0);
>
> They will have the FD installed, no error message, but FD number wont be
> written
> to memory AFAICT. If two FDs are passed, you will get an efault. They will
> both
> be installed, but memory wont be written to. Maybe instead of 0, make it a
> poison pointer, or -1 instead?
Hmmm. I see what you mean -- SCM_RIGHTS effectively _requires_ a valid
__user pointer, so we can't use NULL to indicate "we don't want this".
I'm not sure I can pass this through directly at all, though.
> -----
> As an aside, all of this junk should be dropped:
> + ret = get_user(size, &uaddfd->size);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = copy_struct_from_user(&addfd, sizeof(addfd), uaddfd, size);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> and the size member of the seccomp_notif_addfd struct. I brought this up
> off-list with Tycho that ioctls have the size of the struct embedded in them.
> We
> should just use that. The ioctl definition is based on this[2]:
> #define _IOC(dir,type,nr,size) \
> (((dir) << _IOC_DIRSHIFT) | \
> ((type) << _IOC_TYPESHIFT) | \
> ((nr) << _IOC_NRSHIFT) | \
> ((size) << _IOC_SIZESHIFT))
>
>
> We should just use copy_from_user for now. In the future, we can either
> introduce new ioctl names for new structs, or extract the size dynamically
> from
> the ioctl (and mask it out on the switch statement in seccomp_notify_ioctl.
Okay, sounds good.
> ----
> +#define SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD SECCOMP_IOR(3, \
> + struct seccomp_notif_addfd)
>
> Lastly, what I believe to be a small mistake, it should be SECCOMP_IOW, based
> on
> the documentation in ioctl.h -- "_IOW means userland is writing and kernel is
> reading."
Okay, let me tweak things and get a "v3.3". ;)
--
Kees Cook
