Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Require CAP_KILL if sigtrap is requested

2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-07-02 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Require CAP_KILL if sigtrap is requested

From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-01 21:41:30

Marco Elver [off-list ref] writes:
If perf_event_open() is called with another task as target and
perf_event_attr::sigtrap is set, and the target task's user does not
match the calling user, also require the CAP_KILL capability.

Otherwise, with the CAP_PERFMON capability alone it would be possible
for a user to send SIGTRAP signals via perf events to another user's
tasks. This could potentially result in those tasks being terminated if
they cannot handle SIGTRAP signals.

Note: The check complements the existing capability check, but is not
supposed to supersede the ptrace_may_access() check. At a high level we
now have:

	capable of CAP_PERFMON and (CAP_KILL if sigtrap)
		OR
	ptrace_may_access() // also checks for same thread-group and uid
Is there anyway we could have a comment that makes the required
capability checks clear?

Basically I see an inlined version of kill_ok_by_cred being implemented
without the comments on why the various pieces make sense.

Certainly ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS) should not
be a check to allow writing/changing a task.  It needs to be
PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS, like /proc/self/mem uses.

Now in practice I think your patch probably has the proper checks in
place for sending a signal but it is far from clear.

Eric

quoted hunk
Fixes: 97ba62b27867 ("perf: Add support for SIGTRAP on perf events")
Cc: <redacted> # 5.13+
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
---
v2:
* Drop kill_capable() and just check CAP_KILL (reported by Ondrej Mosnacek).
* Use ns_capable(__task_cred(task)->user_ns, CAP_KILL) to check for
  capability in target task's ns (reported by Ondrej Mosnacek).
---
 kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index fe88d6eea3c2..43c99695dc3f 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -12152,10 +12152,23 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	}
 
 	if (task) {
+		bool is_capable;
+
 		err = down_read_interruptible(&task->signal->exec_update_lock);
 		if (err)
 			goto err_file;
 
+		is_capable = perfmon_capable();
+		if (attr.sigtrap) {
+			/*
+			 * perf_event_attr::sigtrap sends signals to the other
+			 * task. Require the current task to have CAP_KILL.
+			 */
+			rcu_read_lock();
+			is_capable &= ns_capable(__task_cred(task)->user_ns, CAP_KILL);
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+		}
+
 		/*
 		 * Preserve ptrace permission check for backwards compatibility.
 		 *
@@ -12165,7 +12178,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 		 * perf_event_exit_task() that could imply).
 		 */
 		err = -EACCES;
-		if (!perfmon_capable() && !ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS))
+		if (!is_capable && !ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS))
 			goto err_cred;
 	}

Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Require CAP_KILL if sigtrap is requested

From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: 2021-07-02 07:21:17

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 23:41, Eric W. Biederman [off-list ref] wrote:
Marco Elver [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
If perf_event_open() is called with another task as target and
perf_event_attr::sigtrap is set, and the target task's user does not
match the calling user, also require the CAP_KILL capability.

Otherwise, with the CAP_PERFMON capability alone it would be possible
for a user to send SIGTRAP signals via perf events to another user's
tasks. This could potentially result in those tasks being terminated if
they cannot handle SIGTRAP signals.

Note: The check complements the existing capability check, but is not
supposed to supersede the ptrace_may_access() check. At a high level we
now have:

      capable of CAP_PERFMON and (CAP_KILL if sigtrap)
              OR
      ptrace_may_access() // also checks for same thread-group and uid
Is there anyway we could have a comment that makes the required
capability checks clear?

Basically I see an inlined version of kill_ok_by_cred being implemented
without the comments on why the various pieces make sense.
I'll add more comments. It probably also makes sense to factor the
code here into its own helper.
Certainly ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS) should not
be a check to allow writing/changing a task.  It needs to be
PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS, like /proc/self/mem uses.
So if attr.sigtrap the checked ptrace mode needs to switch to
PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH_REALCREDS. Otherwise, it is possible to send a
signal if only read-ptrace permissions are granted.

Is my assumption here correct?
Now in practice I think your patch probably has the proper checks in
place for sending a signal but it is far from clear.
Thanks,
-- Marco
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help