From aeca4e2ca65c1aeacfbe520684e6421719d99417 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Micah Morton Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:46:06 -0800 Subject: LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls SafeSetID gates the setid family of syscalls to restrict UID/GID transitions from a given UID/GID to only those approved by a system-wide whitelist. These restrictions also prohibit the given UIDs/GIDs from obtaining auxiliary privileges associated with CAP_SET{U/G}ID, such as allowing a user to set up user namespace UID mappings. For now, only gating the set*uid family of syscalls is supported, with support for set*gid coming in a future patch set. Signed-off-by: Micah Morton Acked-by: Kees Cook Signed-off-by: James Morris --- Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst (limited to 'Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..212434ef65ad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/SafeSetID.rst @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +========= +SafeSetID +========= +SafeSetID is an LSM module that gates the setid family of syscalls to restrict +UID/GID transitions from a given UID/GID to only those approved by a +system-wide whitelist. These restrictions also prohibit the given UIDs/GIDs +from obtaining auxiliary privileges associated with CAP_SET{U/G}ID, such as +allowing a user to set up user namespace UID mappings. + + +Background +========== +In absence of file capabilities, processes spawned on a Linux system that need +to switch to a different user must be spawned with CAP_SETUID privileges. +CAP_SETUID is granted to programs running as root or those running as a non-root +user that have been explicitly given the CAP_SETUID runtime capability. It is +often preferable to use Linux runtime capabilities rather than file +capabilities, since using file capabilities to run a program with elevated +privileges opens up possible security holes since any user with access to the +file can exec() that program to gain the elevated privileges. + +While it is possible to implement a tree of processes by giving full +CAP_SET{U/G}ID capabilities, this is often at odds with the goals of running a +tree of processes under non-root user(s) in the first place. Specifically, +since CAP_SETUID allows changing to any user on the system, including the root +user, it is an overpowered capability for what is needed in this scenario, +especially since programs often only call setuid() to drop privileges to a +lesser-privileged user -- not elevate privileges. Unfortunately, there is no +generally feasible way in Linux to restrict the potential UIDs that a user can +switch to through setuid() beyond allowing a switch to any user on the system. +This SafeSetID LSM seeks to provide a solution for restricting setid +capabilities in such a way. + +The main use case for this LSM is to allow a non-root program to transition to +other untrusted uids without full blown CAP_SETUID capabilities. The non-root +program would still need CAP_SETUID to do any kind of transition, but the +additional restrictions imposed by this LSM would mean it is a "safer" version +of CAP_SETUID since the non-root program cannot take advantage of CAP_SETUID to +do any unapproved actions (e.g. setuid to uid 0 or create/enter new user +namespace). The higher level goal is to allow for uid-based sandboxing of system +services without having to give out CAP_SETUID all over the place just so that +non-root programs can drop to even-lesser-privileged uids. This is especially +relevant when one non-root daemon on the system should be allowed to spawn other +processes as different uids, but its undesirable to give the daemon a +basically-root-equivalent CAP_SETUID. + + +Other Approaches Considered +=========================== + +Solve this problem in userspace +------------------------------- +For candidate applications that would like to have restricted setid capabilities +as implemented in this LSM, an alternative option would be to simply take away +setid capabilities from the application completely and refactor the process +spawning semantics in the application (e.g. by using a privileged helper program +to do process spawning and UID/GID transitions). Unfortunately, there are a +number of semantics around process spawning that would be affected by this, such +as fork() calls where the program doesn???t immediately call exec() after the +fork(), parent processes specifying custom environment variables or command line +args for spawned child processes, or inheritance of file handles across a +fork()/exec(). Because of this, as solution that uses a privileged helper in +userspace would likely be less appealing to incorporate into existing projects +that rely on certain process-spawning semantics in Linux. + +Use user namespaces +------------------- +Another possible approach would be to run a given process tree in its own user +namespace and give programs in the tree setid capabilities. In this way, +programs in the tree could change to any desired UID/GID in the context of their +own user namespace, and only approved UIDs/GIDs could be mapped back to the +initial system user namespace, affectively preventing privilege escalation. +Unfortunately, it is not generally feasible to use user namespaces in isolation, +without pairing them with other namespace types, which is not always an option. +Linux checks for capabilities based off of the user namespace that ???owns??? some +entity. For example, Linux has the notion that network namespaces are owned by +the user namespace in which they were created. A consequence of this is that +capability checks for access to a given network namespace are done by checking +whether a task has the given capability in the context of the user namespace +that owns the network namespace -- not necessarily the user namespace under +which the given task runs. Therefore spawning a process in a new user namespace +effectively prevents it from accessing the network namespace owned by the +initial namespace. This is a deal-breaker for any application that expects to +retain the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability for the purpose of adjusting network +configurations. Using user namespaces in isolation causes problems regarding +other system interactions, including use of pid namespaces and device creation. + +Use an existing LSM +------------------- +None of the other in-tree LSMs have the capability to gate setid transitions, or +even employ the security_task_fix_setuid hook at all. SELinux says of that hook: +"Since setuid only affects the current process, and since the SELinux controls +are not based on the Linux identity attributes, SELinux does not need to control +this operation." + + +Directions for use +================== +This LSM hooks the setid syscalls to make sure transitions are allowed if an +applicable restriction policy is in place. Policies are configured through +securityfs by writing to the safesetid/add_whitelist_policy and +safesetid/flush_whitelist_policies files at the location where securityfs is +mounted. The format for adding a policy is ':', using literal +numbers, such as '123:456'. To flush the policies, any write to the file is +sufficient. Again, configuring a policy for a UID will prevent that UID from +obtaining auxiliary setid privileges, such as allowing a user to set up user +namespace UID mappings. -- cgit