Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] security/fbfam: Detect a fork brute force attack
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: 2020-09-11 00:02:35
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:49 AM Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:quoted
From: John Wood <redacted> To detect a fork brute force attack it is necessary to compute the crashing rate of the application. This calculation is performed in each fatal fail of a task, or in other words, when a core dump is triggered. If this rate shows that the application is crashing quickly, there is a clear signal that an attack is happening. Since the crashing rate is computed in milliseconds per fault, if this rate goes under a certain threshold a warning is triggered. Signed-off-by: John Wood <redacted> --- fs/coredump.c | 2 ++ include/fbfam/fbfam.h | 2 ++ security/fbfam/fbfam.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)diff --git a/fs/coredump.c b/fs/coredump.c index 76e7c10edfc0..d4ba4e1828d5 100644 --- a/fs/coredump.c +++ b/fs/coredump.c@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ #include "internal.h" #include <trace/events/sched.h> +#include <fbfam/fbfam.h> int core_uses_pid; unsigned int core_pipe_limit;@@ -825,6 +826,7 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo) fail_creds: put_cred(cred); fail: + fbfam_handle_attack(siginfo->si_signo);I don't think this is the right place for detecting a crash -- isn't this only for the "dumping core" condition? In other words, don't you want to do this in get_signal()'s "fatal" block? (i.e. very close to the do_coredump, but without the "should I dump?" check?) Hmm, but maybe I'm wrong? It looks like you're looking at noticing the process taking a signal from SIG_KERNEL_COREDUMP_MASK ? (Better yet: what are fatal conditions that do NOT match SIG_KERNEL_COREDUMP_MASK, and should those be covered?) Regardless, *this* looks like the only place without an LSM hook. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to add one here. I assume it would probably just take the siginfo pointer, which is also what you're checking.
Good point, making this an LSM might be a good idea.
e.g. for include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h: LSM_HOOK(int, 0, task_coredump, const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo);
I guess it should probably be an LSM_RET_VOID hook? And since, as you said, it's not really semantically about core dumping, maybe it should be named task_fatal_signal or something like that.