On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:23 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Saturday, December 25, 2010 6:43:25 am Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> John Baldwin wrote: >> > On Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:51:41 am Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> >> Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> >>> Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >>>> 2010/4/20 Miroslav Lachman<000.f...@quip.cz>: >> >>>>> I have large storage partition (/vol0) mounted as noexec and nosuid. >> >>>>> Then >> >>>>> one directory from this partition is mounted by nullfs as "exec and >> >>>>> suid" so >> >>>>> anything on it can be executed. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The directory contains full installation of jail. Jail is running >> >>>>> fine, but >> >>>>> some ports (PHP for example) cannot be compiled inside the jail with >> >>>>> message: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Cannot execute objects on / >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The same apply to executing of apxs >> >>>>> >> >>>>> r...@rainnew ~/# /usr/local/sbin/apxs -q MPM_NAME >> >>>>> /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Cannot execute objects on / >> >>>>> >> >>>>> apxs:Error: Sorry, no shared object support for Apache. >> >>>>> apxs:Error: available under your platform. Make sure. >> >>>>> apxs:Error: the Apache module mod_so is compiled into. >> >>>>> apxs:Error: your server binary '/usr/local/sbin/httpd'.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (it should return "prefork") >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So I think there is some bug in checking the mountpoint options, >> >>>>> where the >> >>>>> check is made on "parent" of the nullfs instead of the nullfs target >> >>>>> mountpoint. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It is on 6.4-RELEASE i386 GENERIC. I did not test it on another >> >>>>> release. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This is list of related mount points: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> /dev/mirror/gm0s2d on /vol0 (ufs, local, noexec, nosuid, soft-updates) >> >>>>> /vol0/jail/.nullfs/rain on /vol0/jail/rain_new (nullfs, local) >> >>>>> /usr/ports on /vol0/jail/rain_new/usr/ports (nullfs, local) >> >>>>> devfs on /vol0/jail/rain_new/dev (devfs, local) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If I changed /vol0 options to (ufs, local, soft-updates) the above >> >>>>> error is >> >>>>> gone and apxs / compilation works fine. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Can somebody look at this problem? >> >>>> >> >>>> Can you please provide output from ktrace / truss for the issue? >> >>> >> >>> I did >> >>> # ktrace /usr/local/sbin/apxs -q MPM_NAME >> >>> >> >>> The output is here http://freebsd.quip.cz/ld-elf/ktrace.out >> >>> >> >>> Let me know if you need something else. >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for your interest! >> >> >> >> The problem is still there in FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE amd64 GENERIC (and in >> >> 7.x). >> >> >> >> Can somebody say if this is a bug or an expected "feature"? >> > >> > I think this is the expected behavior as nullfs is simply re-exposing /vol0 >> > and it shouldn't be able to create a more privileged mount than the >> > underlying >> > mount I think (e.g. a read/write nullfs mount of a read-only filesystem >> > would >> > not make the underlying files read/write). It can be used to provide less >> > privilege (e.g. a readonly nullfs mount of a read/write filesystem does not >> > allow writes via the nullfs layer). >> > >> > That said, I'm not sure exactly where the permission check is failing. >> > execve() only checks MNT_NOEXEC on the "upper" vnode's mountpoint (i.e. the >> > nullfs mountpoint) and the VOP_ACCESS(.., V_EXEC) check does not look at >> > MNT_NOEXEC either. >> > >> > I do think there might be bugs in that a nullfs mount that specifies >> > noexec or >> > nosuid might not enforce the noexec or nosuid bits if the underlying mount >> > point does not have them set (from what I can see). >> >> Thank you for your explanation. Then it is strange, that there is bug, >> that allows execution on originally non executable mountpoint. >> It should be mentioned in the bugs section of the mount_nullfs man page. >> >> It would be useful, if 'mount' output shows inherited options for nullfs. >> >> If parent is: >> /dev/mirror/gm0s2d on /vol0 (ufs, local, noexec, nosuid, soft-updates) >> >> Then nullfs line will be: >> /vol0/jail/.nullfs/rain on /vol0/jail/rain_new (nullfs, local, noexec, >> nosuid) >> >> instead of just >> /vol0/jail/.nullfs/rain on /vol0/jail/rain_new (nullfs, local) >> >> >> Then I can understand what is expected behavior, but our current state >> is half working, if I can execute scripts and binaries, run jail on it, >> but can't execute "apxs -q MPM_NAME" and few others. > > Hmm, so I was a bit mistaken. The kernel is not failing to exec the binary. > Instead, rtld is reporting the error here: > > static Obj_Entry * > do_load_object(int fd, const char *name, char *path, struct stat *sbp, > int flags) > { > Obj_Entry *obj; > struct statfs fs; > > /* > * but first, make sure that environment variables haven't been > * used to circumvent the noexec flag on a filesystem. > */ > if (dangerous_ld_env) { > if (fstatfs(fd, &fs) != 0) { > _rtld_error("Cannot fstatfs \"%s\"", path); > return NULL; > } > if (fs.f_flags & MNT_NOEXEC) { > _rtld_error("Cannot execute objects on %s\n", fs.f_mntonname); > return NULL; > } > } > > I wonder if the fstatfs is falling down to the original mount rather than > being caught by nullfs. > > Hmm, nullfs' statfs method returns the flags for the underlying mount, not > the flags for the nullfs mount. This is possibly broken, but it is the > behavior nullfs has always had and the behavior it still has on other BSDs.
Not sure if it's relevant here but we fixed a bug locally that I still need to upstream, where NFS is putting another flags word here and incorrectly reporting MNT_NOEXEC. Unfortunately I'm on vacation so I can't easily look it up but there are very few lines in NFS that set f_flags. Thanks, matthew _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
