Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 09:05 AM, halfdog wrote:
>
>> halfdog wrote:
>>
>> Now this is the updated and also tested patch (vs. linux-3.5.4 kernel) to fix
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46841 . See also
>> http://www.halfdog.net/Security/2012/LinuxKernelBinfmtScriptStackDataDisclosure/
>> This patch adresses the stack data disclosure but does not deal with the
>> excessive recursion (to be handled in separate patch if needed).
>>
>> --- fs/binfmt_script.c 2012-09-14 22:28:08.000000000 +0000
>> +++ fs/binfmt_script.c 2012-09-20 16:01:58.951942355 +0000
>
>
> Incorrect diff/patch format for kernel patches.
> It should be apply-able by using 'patch -p1'.
> ...
OK, formatting changed:
* patch depth level added
* comment style changed
* goto-s now on own line
Has any one looked at the logic apart from the styling? Are there any flaws?
> Oh, the patch is not signed off.
Yes. Anyone who likes it can sign it off or even resubmit it in his name.
--- linux-3.5.4/fs/binfmt_script.c 2012-09-14 22:28:08.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-3.5.4/fs/binfmt_script.c 2012-09-23 02:28:39.905123091 +0000
@@ -14,12 +14,25 @@
#include <linux/err.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
+/*
+ * Check if this handler is suitable to load the "binary" identified
+ * by first BINPRM_BUF_SIZE bytes in bprm->buf.
+ * returns: -ENOEXEC if this handler is not suitable for that type
+ * of binary. In that case, the handler must not modify any of the
+ * data associated with bprm.
+ * Any error if the binary should have been handled by this loader
+ * but handling failed. In that case. FIXME: be defensive? also
+ * kill bprm->mm or bprm->file also to make it impossible, that
+ * upper search_binary_handler can continue handling?
+ * 0 (OK) otherwise, the new executable is ready in bprm->mm.
+ */
static int load_script(struct linux_binprm *bprm,struct pt_regs *regs)
{
const char *i_arg, *i_name;
char *cp;
struct file *file;
- char interp[BINPRM_BUF_SIZE];
+ char bprm_buf_copy[BINPRM_BUF_SIZE];
+ const char *bprm_old_interp_name;
int retval;
if ((bprm->buf[0] != '#') || (bprm->buf[1] != '!') ||
@@ -30,25 +43,32 @@ static int load_script(struct linux_binp
* Sorta complicated, but hopefully it will work. -TYT
*/
- bprm->recursion_depth++;
- allow_write_access(bprm->file);
- fput(bprm->file);
- bprm->file = NULL;
+ /*
+ * Keep bprm unchanged until we known, that this is a script
+ * to be handled by this loader. Copy bprm->buf for sure,
+ * otherwise returning -ENOEXEC will make other handlers see
+ * modified data. (hd)
+ */
+ memcpy(bprm_buf_copy, bprm->buf, BINPRM_BUF_SIZE);
- bprm->buf[BINPRM_BUF_SIZE - 1] = '\0';
- if ((cp = strchr(bprm->buf, '\n')) == NULL)
- cp = bprm->buf+BINPRM_BUF_SIZE-1;
+ bprm_buf_copy[BINPRM_BUF_SIZE - 1]='\0';
+ if ((cp = strchr(bprm_buf_copy, '\n')) == NULL)
+ cp = bprm_buf_copy+BINPRM_BUF_SIZE-1;
*cp = '\0';
- while (cp > bprm->buf) {
+ while (cp > bprm_buf_copy) {
cp--;
if ((*cp == ' ') || (*cp == '\t'))
*cp = '\0';
else
break;
}
- for (cp = bprm->buf+2; (*cp == ' ') || (*cp == '\t'); cp++);
+ for (cp = bprm_buf_copy+2; (*cp == ' ') || (*cp == '\t'); cp++);
if (*cp == '\0')
- return -ENOEXEC; /* No interpreter name found */
+ /*
+ * No interpreter name found. No problem to let other handlers
+ * retry, we did not change anything.
+ */
+ return -ENOEXEC;
i_name = cp;
i_arg = NULL;
for ( ; *cp && (*cp != ' ') && (*cp != '\t'); cp++)
@@ -57,45 +77,94 @@ static int load_script(struct linux_binp
*cp++ = '\0';
if (*cp)
i_arg = cp;
- strcpy (interp, i_name);
+
+ /*
+ * So this is our point-of-no-return: modification of bprm
+ * will be irreversible, so if we fail to setup execution
+ * using the new interpreter name (i_name), we have to make
+ * sure, that no other handler tries again. (hd)
+ */
+
/*
* OK, we've parsed out the interpreter name and
* (optional) argument.
* Splice in (1) the interpreter's name for argv[0]
- * (2) (optional) argument to interpreter
- * (3) filename of shell script (replace argv[0])
+ * (2) (optional) argument to interpreter
+ * (3) filename of shell script (replace argv[0])
*
* This is done in reverse order, because of how the
* user environment and arguments are stored.
*/
+
+ /*
+ * Ugly: we store pointer to local stack frame in bprm,
+ * so make sure to clear this up before returning.
+ */
+ bprm_old_interp_name = bprm->interp;
+ bprm->interp = i_name;
+
retval = remove_arg_zero(bprm);
if (retval)
- return retval;
- retval = copy_strings_kernel(1, &bprm->interp, bprm);
- if (retval < 0) return retval;
+ goto out;
+ /*
+ * copy_strings_kernel is ok here, even when racy: since no
+ * user can be attached to new mm, there is nobody to race
+ * with and call is safe for now. The return code of
+ * copy_strings_kernel cannot be -ENOEXEC in any case,
+ * so no special checks needed. (hd)
+ */
+ retval = copy_strings_kernel(1, &bprm_old_interp_name, bprm);
+ if (retval < 0)
+ goto out;
bprm->argc++;
if (i_arg) {
retval = copy_strings_kernel(1, &i_arg, bprm);
- if (retval < 0) return retval;
+ if (retval < 0)
+ goto out;
bprm->argc++;
}
- retval = copy_strings_kernel(1, &i_name, bprm);
- if (retval) return retval;
+ retval = copy_strings_kernel(1, &bprm->interp, bprm);
+ if (retval)
+ goto out;
bprm->argc++;
- bprm->interp = interp;
/*
* OK, now restart the process with the interpreter's dentry.
+ * Release old file first
*/
- file = open_exec(interp);
- if (IS_ERR(file))
- return PTR_ERR(file);
-
+ allow_write_access(bprm->file);
+ fput(bprm->file);
+ bprm->file = NULL;
+ file = open_exec(bprm->interp);
+ if (IS_ERR(file)) {
+ retval=PTR_ERR(file);
+ goto out;
+ }
bprm->file = file;
+ /* Caveat: This also updates the credentials of the next exec. */
retval = prepare_binprm(bprm);
if (retval < 0)
- return retval;
- return search_binary_handler(bprm,regs);
+ goto out;
+ bprm->recursion_depth++;
+ retval=search_binary_handler(bprm,regs);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure, we do not return local stack frame data. If
+ * it would be needed after returning, we would have needed
+ * to allocate memory or use copy from new bprm->mm anyway. (hd)
+ */
+out:
+ bprm->interp = bprm_old_interp_name;
+ if(!retval) {
+ /*
+ * The handlers for starting of interpreter failed.
+ * bprm is already modified, hence we are dead here.
+ * Make sure, that we do not return -ENOEXEC, that would
+ * allow searching for handlers to continue. (hd).
+ */
+ if(retval==-ENOEXEC) retval=-EINVAL;
+ }
+ return(retval);
}
static struct linux_binfmt script_format = {
---
http://www.halfdog.net/
PGP: 156A AE98 B91F 0114 FE88 2BD8 C459 9386 feed a bee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
