Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] proc: instantiate only pids that we can ptrace on 'hidepid=4' mount option
From: Jordan Glover <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-10 16:29:46
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Monday, February 10, 2020 3:05 PM, Alexey Gladkov [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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 keescook@chromium.org Cc: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Djalal Harouni tixxdz@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexey Gladkov gladkov.alexey@gmail.com fs/proc/base.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ fs/proc/root.c | 14 +++++++++++--- include/linux/proc_fs.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c index 24b7c620ded3..49937d54e745 100644 --- a/fs/proc/base.c +++ b/fs/proc/base.c@@ -699,6 +699,14 @@ 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 (proc_fs_hide_pid(fs_info) == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACABLE) - return ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS); - if (proc_fs_hide_pid(fs_info) < hide_pid_min) return true; if (in_group_p(proc_fs_pid_gid(fs_info))) @@ -3271,7 +3279,14 @@ struct dentry *proc_pid_lookup(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags) if (!task) goto out; - /* Limit procfs to only ptracable tasks */ - if (proc_fs_hide_pid(fs_info) == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACABLE) { - 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 e2bb015da1a8..5e27bb31f125 100644 --- a/fs/proc/root.c +++ b/fs/proc/root.c @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@ static const struct fs_parameter_description proc_fs_parameters = { .specs = proc_param_specs, }; +static inline int +valid_hidepid(unsigned int value) +{ - return (value == HIDEPID_OFF || - value == HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS || - value == HIDEPID_INVISIBLE || - value == HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACABLE); +} + static int proc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param) { struct proc_fs_context *ctx = fc->fs_private;@@ -68,10 +77,9 @@ 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 invalf(fc, "proc: 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 f307940f8311..6822548405a7 100644 --- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h +++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ enum {HIDEPID_OFF = 0, HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS = 1, HIDEPID_INVISIBLE = 2, - HIDEPID_NOT_PTRACABLE = 4, /* Limit pids to only ptracable pids */
Is there a reason new option is "4" instead of "3"? The order 1..2..4 may be confusing for people. Jordan