[PATCH v6 2/2] security: tty: make TIOCSTI ioctl require CAP_SYS_ADMIN
From: Matt Brown <hidden>
Date: 2017-05-19 04:51:39
Also in:
lkml
On 5/18/17 9:31 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:20:18PM -0400, Matt Brown wrote:quoted
This introduces the tiocsti_restrict sysctl, whose default is controlled via CONFIG_SECURITY_TIOCSTI_RESTRICT. When activated, this control restricts all TIOCSTI ioctl calls from non CAP_SYS_ADMIN users. This patch depends on patch 1/2 This patch was inspired from GRKERNSEC_HARDEN_TTY. This patch would have prevented https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411256 under the following conditions: * non-privileged container * container run inside new user namespace Possible effects on userland: There could be a few user programs that would be effected by this change. See: <https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=ioctl%5C%28.*TIOCSTI> notable programs are: agetty, csh, xemacs and tcsh However, I still believe that this change is worth it given that the Kconfig defaults to n. This will be a feature that is turned on for the same reason that people activate it when using grsecurity. Users of this opt-in feature will realize that they are choosing security over some OS features like unprivileged TIOCSTI ioctls, as should be clear in the Kconfig help message. Threat Model/Patch Rational:quoted
From grsecurity's config for GRKERNSEC_HARDEN_TTY.| There are very few legitimate uses for this functionality and it | has made vulnerabilities in several 'su'-like programs possible in | the past. Even without these vulnerabilities, it provides an | attacker with an easy mechanism to move laterally among other | processes within the same user's compromised session. So if one process within a tty session becomes compromised it can follow that additional processes, that are thought to be in different security boundaries, can be compromised as a result. When using a program like su or sudo, these additional processes could be in a tty session where TTY file descriptors are indeed shared over privilege boundaries. This is also an excellent writeup about the issue: <http://www.halfdog.net/Security/2012/TtyPushbackPrivilegeEscalation/> When user namespaces are in use, the check for the capability CAP_SYS_ADMIN is done against the user namespace that originally opened the tty. Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted> Signed-off-by: Matt Brown <redacted> --- Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 6 ++++++ include/linux/tty.h | 2 ++ kernel/sysctl.c | 12 ++++++++++++ security/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 54 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt index bac23c1..f7985cf 100644 --- a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ show up in /proc/sys/kernel: - sysctl_writes_strict - tainted - threads-max +- tiocsti_restrict - unknown_nmi_panic - watchdog - watchdog_thresh@@ -987,6 +988,26 @@ available RAM pages threads-max is reduced accordingly. ============================================================== +tiocsti_restrict: + +This toggle indicates whether unprivileged users are prevented +from using the TIOCSTI ioctl to inject commands into other processes +which share a tty session. + +When tiocsti_restrict is set to (0) there are no restrictions(accept +the default restriction of only being able to injection commands into +one's own tty). When tiocsti_restrict is set to (1), users must +have CAP_SYS_ADMIN to use the TIOCSTI ioctl. + +When user namespaces are in use, the check for the capability +CAP_SYS_ADMIN is done against the user namespace that originally +opened the tty. + +The kernel config option CONFIG_SECURITY_TIOCSTI_RESTRICT sets the +default value of tiocsti_restrict. + +============================================================== + unknown_nmi_panic: The value in this file affects behavior of handling NMI. When thediff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c index c276814..fe68d14 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c@@ -2297,11 +2297,17 @@ static int tty_fasync(int fd, struct file *filp, int on) * FIXME: may race normal receive processing */ +int tiocsti_restrict = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_TIOCSTI_RESTRICT); + static int tiocsti(struct tty_struct *tty, char __user *p) { char ch, mbz = 0; struct tty_ldisc *ld; + if (tiocsti_restrict && !ns_capable(tty->owner_user_ns,CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) { + pr_warn_ratelimited("TIOCSTI ioctl call blocked for non-privileged process\n"); + return -EPERM;Always follow the proper kernel coding style rules, as I don't want to have someone else have to come along and fix up the error you have added here :( checkpatch.pl is your friend, really...
My bad. Will fix these issues in v7.
And why not do a warning with the device that caused the problem to happen? dev_warn has a ratelimit I think right? "raw" printk messages like this don't help in trying to track down what/who caused the issue.
yes <linux/device.h> has dev_warn_ratelimited. I will use that in 7v.
And finally, can userspace see the namespace for the tty? Doesn't things like checkpoint/restore need that in order to properly set the tty connection back up when moving processes?
This seems like we would need to expose the owner_user_ns of the tty in procfs somewhere. Section 1.7 Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt describes the following files in /proc/tty: Table 1-11: Files in /proc/tty .............................................................................. File Content drivers list of drivers and their usage ldiscs registered line disciplines driver/serial usage statistic and status of single tty lines .............................................................................. The drivers file is the one that gives the most information that we are interested in. However, the current layout combines information about multiple ttys by driver. As I understand it, a single driver may have ttys that span across different owner_user_ns. would it make sense to add a file /proc/tty/ns that would contain the different tty to user namespace mappings? Or is there a better way to do this? I would appreciate any feedback/ideas you have on this.
v7? :)
v7 will be on its way soon. I'm not currently sure how to address the concern of giving things like checkpoint/restore in userland a way to get the owner_user_ns.
thanks, greg k-h
Thanks for the feedback, Matt Brown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html