Re: [PATCH v10 4/9] proc: instantiate only pids that we can ptrace on 'hidepid=4' mount option

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 01:40:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:23:26PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:

quoted

If "hidepid=4" mount option is set then do not instantiate pids that
we can not ptrace. "hidepid=4" means that procfs should only contain
pids that the caller can ptrace.

Cc: Kees Cook <redacted>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Djalal Harouni <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Alexey Dobriyan <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Alexey Gladkov <redacted>
---
 fs/proc/base.c          | 15 +++++++++++++++
 fs/proc/root.c          | 13 ++++++++++---
 include/linux/proc_fs.h |  1 +
 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index 43a28907baf9..1ebe9eba48ea 100644
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c

@@ -701,6 +701,14 @@ static bool has_pid_permissions(struct proc_fs_info *fs_info,
 				 struct task_struct *task,
 				 int hide_pid_min)
 {
+	/*
+	 * If 'hidpid' mount option is set force a ptrace check,
+	 * we indicate that we are using a filesystem syscall
+	 * by passing PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS
+	 */
+	if (fs_info->hide_pid == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACEABLE)
+		return ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS);
+
 	if (fs_info->hide_pid < hide_pid_min)
 		return true;
 	if (in_group_p(fs_info->pid_gid))

@@ -3319,7 +3327,14 @@ struct dentry *proc_pid_lookup(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags)
 	if (!task)
 		goto out;
 
+	/* Limit procfs to only ptraceable tasks */
+	if (fs_info->hide_pid == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACEABLE) {
+		if (!has_pid_permissions(fs_info, task, HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS))
+			goto out_put_task;
+	}
+
 	result = proc_pid_instantiate(dentry, task, NULL);
+out_put_task:
 	put_task_struct(task);
 out:
 	return result;

diff --git a/fs/proc/root.c b/fs/proc/root.c
index 616e8976185c..62eae22403d2 100644
--- a/fs/proc/root.c
+++ b/fs/proc/root.c

@@ -47,6 +47,14 @@ static const struct fs_parameter_spec proc_fs_parameters[] = {
 	{}
 };
 
+static inline int valid_hidepid(unsigned int value)
+{
+	return (value == HIDEPID_OFF ||
+		value == HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS ||
+		value == HIDEPID_INVISIBLE ||
+		value == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACEABLE);

This likely easier to do with a ...MAX value? i.e.

	return (value < HIDEPID_OFF || value >= HIDEPID_MAX);

quoted

+}
+
 static int proc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
 {
 	struct proc_fs_context *ctx = fc->fs_private;

@@ -63,10 +71,9 @@ static int proc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
 		break;
 
 	case Opt_hidepid:
+		if (!valid_hidepid(result.uint_32))
+			return invalf(fc, "proc: unknown value of hidepid.\n");
 		ctx->hidepid = result.uint_32;
-		if (ctx->hidepid < HIDEPID_OFF ||
-		    ctx->hidepid > HIDEPID_INVISIBLE)
-			return invalfc(fc, "hidepid value must be between 0 and 2.\n");
 		break;
 
 	default:

diff --git a/include/linux/proc_fs.h b/include/linux/proc_fs.h
index 7d852dbca253..21d19353fdc7 100644
--- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h

@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ enum {
 	HIDEPID_OFF	  = 0,
 	HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS = 1,
 	HIDEPID_INVISIBLE = 2,
+	HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACEABLE = 4, /* Limit pids to only ptraceable pids */

This isn't a bit field -- shouldn't this be "3"?

	...
	HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACEABLE = 3,
	HIDEPID_MAX

etc?

I decided to choose 4 so that if later we need to be able to make a mask.
I am not sure that this parameter will not have values that cannot be used
together. Since now these parameters are becoming part of the public api,
I decided to add flexibility.

-- 
Rgrds, legion