linux/security/commoncap.c, branch v2.6.28

file caps: always start with clear bprm->caps_*

2008-11-01T16:49:45Z

While Linux doesn't honor setuid on scripts. However, it mistakenly behaves differently for file capabilities. This patch fixes that behavior by making sure that get_file_caps() begins with empty bprm->caps_*. That way when a script is loaded, its bprm->caps_* may be filled when binfmt_misc calls prepare_binprm(), but they will be cleared again when binfmt_elf calls prepare_binprm() next to read the interpreter's file capabilities. Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn Acked-by: David Howells Acked-by: Andrew G. Morgan Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

file capabilities: uninline cap_safe_nice

2008-09-27T05:07:56Z

This reduces the kernel size by 289 bytes. Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn Acked-by: Andrew G. Morgan Signed-off-by: James Morris

security: Fix setting of PF_SUPERPRIV by __capable()

2008-08-14T12:59:43Z

Fix the setting of PF_SUPERPRIV by __capable() as it could corrupt the flags the target process if that is not the current process and it is trying to change its own flags in a different way at the same time. __capable() is using neither atomic ops nor locking to protect t->flags. This patch removes __capable() and introduces has_capability() that doesn't set PF_SUPERPRIV on the process being queried. This patch further splits security_ptrace() in two: (1) security_ptrace_may_access(). This passes judgement on whether one process may access another only (PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH for ptrace() and PTRACE_MODE_READ for /proc), and takes a pointer to the child process. current is the parent. (2) security_ptrace_traceme(). This passes judgement on PTRACE_TRACEME only, and takes only a pointer to the parent process. current is the child. In Smack and commoncap, this uses has_capability() to determine whether the parent will be permitted to use PTRACE_ATTACH if normal checks fail. This does not set PF_SUPERPRIV. Two of the instances of __capable() actually only act on current, and so have been changed to calls to capable(). Of the places that were using __capable(): (1) The OOM killer calls __capable() thrice when weighing the killability of a process. All of these now use has_capability(). (2) cap_ptrace() and smack_ptrace() were using __capable() to check to see whether the parent was allowed to trace any process. As mentioned above, these have been split. For PTRACE_ATTACH and /proc, capable() is now used, and for PTRACE_TRACEME, has_capability() is used. (3) cap_safe_nice() only ever saw current, so now uses capable(). (4) smack_setprocattr() rejected accesses to tasks other than current just after calling __capable(), so the order of these two tests have been switched and capable() is used instead. (5) In smack_file_send_sigiotask(), we need to allow privileged processes to receive SIGIO on files they're manipulating. (6) In smack_task_wait(), we let a process wait for a privileged process, whether or not the process doing the waiting is privileged. I've tested this with the LTP SELinux and syscalls testscripts. Signed-off-by: David Howells Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Acked-by: Casey Schaufler Acked-by: Andrew G. Morgan Acked-by: Al Viro Signed-off-by: James Morris

security: protect legacy applications from executing with insufficient privilege

2008-07-24T17:47:22Z

When cap_bset suppresses some of the forced (fP) capabilities of a file, it is generally only safe to execute the program if it understands how to recognize it doesn't have enough privilege to work correctly. For legacy applications (fE!=0), which have no non-destructive way to determine that they are missing privilege, we fail to execute (EPERM) any executable that requires fP capabilities, but would otherwise get pP' < fP. This is a fail-safe permission check. For some discussion of why it is problematic for (legacy) privileged applications to run with less than the set of capabilities requested for them, see: http://userweb.kernel.org/~morgan/sendmail-capabilities-war-story.html With this iteration of this support, we do not include setuid-0 based privilege protection from the bounding set. That is, the admin can still (ab)use the bounding set to suppress the privileges of a setuid-0 program. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes] [akpm@linux-foundation.org: cleanup] Signed-off-by: Andrew G. Morgan Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

Security: split proc ptrace checking into read vs. attach

2008-07-14T05:01:47Z

Enable security modules to distinguish reading of process state via proc from full ptrace access by renaming ptrace_may_attach to ptrace_may_access and adding a mode argument indicating whether only read access or full attach access is requested. This allows security modules to permit access to reading process state without granting full ptrace access. The base DAC/capability checking remains unchanged. Read access to /proc/pid/mem continues to apply a full ptrace attach check since check_mem_permission() already requires the current task to already be ptracing the target. The other ptrace checks within proc for elements like environ, maps, and fds are changed to pass the read mode instead of attach. In the SELinux case, we model such reading of process state as a reading of a proc file labeled with the target process' label. This enables SELinux policy to permit such reading of process state without permitting control or manipulation of the target process, as there are a number of cases where programs probe for such information via proc but do not need to be able to control the target (e.g. procps, lsof, PolicyKit, ConsoleKit). At present we have to choose between allowing full ptrace in policy (more permissive than required/desired) or breaking functionality (or in some cases just silencing the denials via dontaudit rules but this can hide genuine attacks). This version of the patch incorporates comments from Casey Schaufler (change/replace existing ptrace_may_attach interface, pass access mode), and Chris Wright (provide greater consistency in the checking). Note that like their predecessors __ptrace_may_attach and ptrace_may_attach, the __ptrace_may_access and ptrace_may_access interfaces use different return value conventions from each other (0 or -errno vs. 1 or 0). I retained this difference to avoid any changes to the caller logic but made the difference clearer by changing the latter interface to return a bool rather than an int and by adding a comment about it to ptrace.h for any future callers. Signed-off-by: Stephen Smalley Acked-by: Chris Wright Signed-off-by: James Morris

security: filesystem capabilities: fix CAP_SETPCAP handling

2008-07-04T17:40:08Z

The filesystem capability support meaning for CAP_SETPCAP is less powerful than the non-filesystem capability support. As such, when filesystem capabilities are configured, we should not permit CAP_SETPCAP to 'enhance' the current process through strace manipulation of a child process. Signed-off-by: Andrew G. Morgan Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Cc: David Howells Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

xattr: add missing consts to function arguments

2008-04-29T15:06:06Z

Add missing consts to xattr function arguments. Signed-off-by: David Howells Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

capabilities: implement per-process securebits

2008-04-28T15:58:26Z

Filesystem capability support makes it possible to do away with (set)uid-0 based privilege and use capabilities instead. That is, with filesystem support for capabilities but without this present patch, it is (conceptually) possible to manage a system with capabilities alone and never need to obtain privilege via (set)uid-0. Of course, conceptually isn't quite the same as currently possible since few user applications, certainly not enough to run a viable system, are currently prepared to leverage capabilities to exercise privilege. Further, many applications exist that may never get upgraded in this way, and the kernel will continue to want to support their setuid-0 base privilege needs. Where pure-capability applications evolve and replace setuid-0 binaries, it is desirable that there be a mechanisms by which they can contain their privilege. In addition to leveraging the per-process bounding and inheritable sets, this should include suppressing the privilege of the uid-0 superuser from the process' tree of children. The feature added by this patch can be leveraged to suppress the privilege associated with (set)uid-0. This suppression requires CAP_SETPCAP to initiate, and only immediately affects the 'current' process (it is inherited through fork()/exec()). This reimplementation differs significantly from the historical support for securebits which was system-wide, unwieldy and which has ultimately withered to a dead relic in the source of the modern kernel. With this patch applied a process, that is capable(CAP_SETPCAP), can now drop all legacy privilege (through uid=0) for itself and all subsequently fork()'d/exec()'d children with: prctl(PR_SET_SECUREBITS, 0x2f); This patch represents a no-op unless CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES is enabled at configure time. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix uninitialised var warning] [serue@us.ibm.com: capabilities: use cap_task_prctl when !CONFIG_SECURITY] Signed-off-by: Andrew G. Morgan Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Reviewed-by: James Morris Cc: Stephen Smalley Cc: Paul Moore Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

security: replace remaining FUNCTION occurrences

2008-04-18T10:26:07Z

__FUNCTION__ is gcc-specific, use __func__ Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison Cc: James Morris Cc: Stephen Smalley Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: James Morris

file capabilities: remove cap_task_kill()

2008-03-20T16:46:36Z

The original justification for cap_task_kill() was as follows: check_kill_permission() does appropriate uid equivalence checks. However with file capabilities it becomes possible for an unprivileged user to execute a file with file capabilities resulting in a more privileged task with the same uid. However now that cap_task_kill() always returns 0 (permission granted) when p->uid==current->uid, the whole hook is worthless, and only likely to create more subtle problems in the corner cases where it might still be called but return -EPERM. Those cases are basically when uids are different but euid/suid is equivalent as per the check in check_kill_permission(). One example of a still-broken application is 'at' for non-root users. This patch removes cap_task_kill(). Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn Acked-by: Andrew G. Morgan Earlier-version-tested-by: Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino Acked-by: Casey Schaufler Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds