linux.git/mm/memfd.c, branch v6.6 Linux kernel source tree revert "memfd: improve userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags". 2023-09-05T18:11:52+00:00 Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org 2023-09-02T22:59:31+00:00 2562d67b1bdf91c7395b0225d60fdeb26b4bc5a0 This warning is telling userspace developers to pass MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to memfd_create(). Commit 434ed3350f57 ("memfd: improve userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags") made the warning more frequent and visible in the hope that this would accelerate the fixing of errant userspace. But the overall effect is to generate far too much dmesg noise. Fixes: 434ed3350f57 ("memfd: improve userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags") Reported-by: Damian Tometzki <dtometzki@fedoraproject.org> Closes: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZPFzCSIgZ4QuHsSC@fedora.fritz.box Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
This warning is telling userspace developers to pass MFD_EXEC and
MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to memfd_create().  Commit 434ed3350f57 ("memfd: improve
userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags") made the warning more
frequent and visible in the hope that this would accelerate the fixing of
errant userspace.

But the overall effect is to generate far too much dmesg noise.

Fixes: 434ed3350f57 ("memfd: improve userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags")
Reported-by: Damian Tometzki <dtometzki@fedoraproject.org>
Closes: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/ZPFzCSIgZ4QuHsSC@fedora.fritz.box
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
memfd: replace ratcheting feature from vm.memfd_noexec with hierarchy 2023-08-21T20:37:59+00:00 Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com 2023-08-14T08:41:00+00:00 9876cfe8ec1cb3c88de31f4d58d57b0e7e22bcc4 This sysctl has the very unusual behaviour of not allowing any user (even CAP_SYS_ADMIN) to reduce the restriction setting, meaning that if you were to set this sysctl to a more restrictive option in the host pidns you would need to reboot your machine in order to reset it. The justification given in [1] is that this is a security feature and thus it should not be possible to disable. Aside from the fact that we have plenty of security-related sysctls that can be disabled after being enabled (fs.protected_symlinks for instance), the protection provided by the sysctl is to stop users from being able to create a binary and then execute it. A user with CAP_SYS_ADMIN can trivially do this without memfd_create(2): % cat mount-memfd.c #include <fcntl.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <linux/mount.h> #define SHELLCODE "#!/bin/echo this file was executed from this totally private tmpfs:" int main(void) { int fsfd = fsopen("tmpfs", FSOPEN_CLOEXEC); assert(fsfd >= 0); assert(!fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE, NULL, NULL, 2)); int dfd = fsmount(fsfd, FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC, 0); assert(dfd >= 0); int execfd = openat(dfd, "exe", O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC, 0782); assert(execfd >= 0); assert(write(execfd, SHELLCODE, strlen(SHELLCODE)) == strlen(SHELLCODE)); assert(!close(execfd)); char *execpath = NULL; char *argv[] = { "bad-exe", NULL }, *envp[] = { NULL }; execfd = openat(dfd, "exe", O_PATH | O_CLOEXEC); assert(execfd >= 0); assert(asprintf(&execpath, "/proc/self/fd/%d", execfd) > 0); assert(!execve(execpath, argv, envp)); } % ./mount-memfd this file was executed from this totally private tmpfs: /proc/self/fd/5 % Given that it is possible for CAP_SYS_ADMIN users to create executable binaries without memfd_create(2) and without touching the host filesystem (not to mention the many other things a CAP_SYS_ADMIN process would be able to do that would be equivalent or worse), it seems strange to cause a fair amount of headache to admins when there doesn't appear to be an actual security benefit to blocking this. There appear to be concerns about confused-deputy-esque attacks[2] but a confused deputy that can write to arbitrary sysctls is a bigger security issue than executable memfds. /* New API */ The primary requirement from the original author appears to be more based on the need to be able to restrict an entire system in a hierarchical manner[3], such that child namespaces cannot re-enable executable memfds. So, implement that behaviour explicitly -- the vm.memfd_noexec scope is evaluated up the pidns tree to &init_pid_ns and you have the most restrictive value applied to you. The new lower limit you can set vm.memfd_noexec is whatever limit applies to your parent. Note that a pidns will inherit a copy of the parent pidns's effective vm.memfd_noexec setting at unshare() time. This matches the existing behaviour, and it also ensures that a pidns will never have its vm.memfd_noexec setting *lowered* behind its back (but it will be raised if the parent raises theirs). /* Backwards Compatibility */ As the previous version of the sysctl didn't allow you to lower the setting at all, there are no backwards compatibility issues with this aspect of the change. However it should be noted that now that the setting is completely hierarchical. Previously, a cloned pidns would just copy the current pidns setting, meaning that if the parent's vm.memfd_noexec was changed it wouldn't propoagate to existing pid namespaces. Now, the restriction applies recursively. This is a uAPI change, however: * The sysctl is very new, having been merged in 6.3. * Several aspects of the sysctl were broken up until this patchset and the other patchset by Jeff Xu last month. And thus it seems incredibly unlikely that any real users would run into this issue. In the worst case, if this causes userspace isues we could make it so that modifying the setting follows the hierarchical rules but the restriction checking uses the cached copy. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/CABi2SkWnAgHK1i6iqSqPMYuNEhtHBkO8jUuCvmG3RmUB5TKHJw@mail.gmail.com/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/CALmYWFs_dNCzw_pW1yRAo4bGCPEtykroEQaowNULp7svwMLjOg@mail.gmail.com/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/CALmYWFuahdUF7cT4cm7_TGLqPanuHXJ-hVSfZt7vpTnc18DPrw@mail.gmail.com/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-4-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC") Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
This sysctl has the very unusual behaviour of not allowing any user (even
CAP_SYS_ADMIN) to reduce the restriction setting, meaning that if you were
to set this sysctl to a more restrictive option in the host pidns you
would need to reboot your machine in order to reset it.

The justification given in [1] is that this is a security feature and thus
it should not be possible to disable.  Aside from the fact that we have
plenty of security-related sysctls that can be disabled after being
enabled (fs.protected_symlinks for instance), the protection provided by
the sysctl is to stop users from being able to create a binary and then
execute it.  A user with CAP_SYS_ADMIN can trivially do this without
memfd_create(2):

  % cat mount-memfd.c
  #include <fcntl.h>
  #include <string.h>
  #include <stdio.h>
  #include <stdlib.h>
  #include <unistd.h>
  #include <linux/mount.h>

  #define SHELLCODE "#!/bin/echo this file was executed from this totally private tmpfs:"

  int main(void)
  {
  	int fsfd = fsopen("tmpfs", FSOPEN_CLOEXEC);
  	assert(fsfd >= 0);
  	assert(!fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE, NULL, NULL, 2));

  	int dfd = fsmount(fsfd, FSMOUNT_CLOEXEC, 0);
  	assert(dfd >= 0);

  	int execfd = openat(dfd, "exe", O_CREAT | O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC, 0782);
  	assert(execfd >= 0);
  	assert(write(execfd, SHELLCODE, strlen(SHELLCODE)) == strlen(SHELLCODE));
  	assert(!close(execfd));

  	char *execpath = NULL;
  	char *argv[] = { "bad-exe", NULL }, *envp[] = { NULL };
  	execfd = openat(dfd, "exe", O_PATH | O_CLOEXEC);
  	assert(execfd >= 0);
  	assert(asprintf(&execpath, "/proc/self/fd/%d", execfd) > 0);
  	assert(!execve(execpath, argv, envp));
  }
  % ./mount-memfd
  this file was executed from this totally private tmpfs: /proc/self/fd/5
  %

Given that it is possible for CAP_SYS_ADMIN users to create executable
binaries without memfd_create(2) and without touching the host filesystem
(not to mention the many other things a CAP_SYS_ADMIN process would be
able to do that would be equivalent or worse), it seems strange to cause a
fair amount of headache to admins when there doesn't appear to be an
actual security benefit to blocking this.  There appear to be concerns
about confused-deputy-esque attacks[2] but a confused deputy that can
write to arbitrary sysctls is a bigger security issue than executable
memfds.

/* New API */

The primary requirement from the original author appears to be more based
on the need to be able to restrict an entire system in a hierarchical
manner[3], such that child namespaces cannot re-enable executable memfds.

So, implement that behaviour explicitly -- the vm.memfd_noexec scope is
evaluated up the pidns tree to &init_pid_ns and you have the most
restrictive value applied to you.  The new lower limit you can set
vm.memfd_noexec is whatever limit applies to your parent.

Note that a pidns will inherit a copy of the parent pidns's effective
vm.memfd_noexec setting at unshare() time.  This matches the existing
behaviour, and it also ensures that a pidns will never have its
vm.memfd_noexec setting *lowered* behind its back (but it will be raised
if the parent raises theirs).

/* Backwards Compatibility */

As the previous version of the sysctl didn't allow you to lower the
setting at all, there are no backwards compatibility issues with this
aspect of the change.

However it should be noted that now that the setting is completely
hierarchical.  Previously, a cloned pidns would just copy the current
pidns setting, meaning that if the parent's vm.memfd_noexec was changed it
wouldn't propoagate to existing pid namespaces.  Now, the restriction
applies recursively.  This is a uAPI change, however:

 * The sysctl is very new, having been merged in 6.3.
 * Several aspects of the sysctl were broken up until this patchset and
   the other patchset by Jeff Xu last month.

And thus it seems incredibly unlikely that any real users would run into
this issue. In the worst case, if this causes userspace isues we could
make it so that modifying the setting follows the hierarchical rules but
the restriction checking uses the cached copy.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/CABi2SkWnAgHK1i6iqSqPMYuNEhtHBkO8jUuCvmG3RmUB5TKHJw@mail.gmail.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/CALmYWFs_dNCzw_pW1yRAo4bGCPEtykroEQaowNULp7svwMLjOg@mail.gmail.com/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/CALmYWFuahdUF7cT4cm7_TGLqPanuHXJ-hVSfZt7vpTnc18DPrw@mail.gmail.com/

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-4-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com
Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
memfd: improve userspace warnings for missing exec-related flags 2023-08-21T20:37:59+00:00 Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com 2023-08-14T08:40:59+00:00 434ed3350f57c03a9654fe0619755cc137a58935 In order to incentivise userspace to switch to passing MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, we need to provide a warning on each attempt to call memfd_create() without the new flags. pr_warn_once() is not useful because on most systems the one warning is burned up during the boot process (on my system, systemd does this within the first second of boot) and thus userspace will in practice never see the warnings to push them to switch to the new flags. The original patchset[1] used pr_warn_ratelimited(), however there were concerns about the degree of spam in the kernel log[2,3]. The resulting inability to detect every case was flagged as an issue at the time[4]. While we could come up with an alternative rate-limiting scheme such as only outputting the message if vm.memfd_noexec has been modified, or only outputting the message once for a given task, these alternatives have downsides that don't make sense given how low-stakes a single kernel warning message is. Switching to pr_info_ratelimited() instead should be fine -- it's possible some monitoring tool will be unhappy with a stream of warning-level messages but there's already plenty of info-level message spam in dmesg. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/20221215001205.51969-4-jeffxu@google.com/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/202212161233.85C9783FB@keescook/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n/ [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/f185bb42-b29c-977e-312e-3349eea15383@linuxfoundation.org/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-3-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC") Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
In order to incentivise userspace to switch to passing MFD_EXEC and
MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, we need to provide a warning on each attempt to call
memfd_create() without the new flags.  pr_warn_once() is not useful
because on most systems the one warning is burned up during the boot
process (on my system, systemd does this within the first second of boot)
and thus userspace will in practice never see the warnings to push them to
switch to the new flags.

The original patchset[1] used pr_warn_ratelimited(), however there were
concerns about the degree of spam in the kernel log[2,3].  The resulting
inability to detect every case was flagged as an issue at the time[4].

While we could come up with an alternative rate-limiting scheme such as
only outputting the message if vm.memfd_noexec has been modified, or only
outputting the message once for a given task, these alternatives have
downsides that don't make sense given how low-stakes a single kernel
warning message is.  Switching to pr_info_ratelimited() instead should be
fine -- it's possible some monitoring tool will be unhappy with a stream
of warning-level messages but there's already plenty of info-level message
spam in dmesg.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/20221215001205.51969-4-jeffxu@google.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/202212161233.85C9783FB@keescook/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n/
[4]: https://lore.kernel.org/f185bb42-b29c-977e-312e-3349eea15383@linuxfoundation.org/

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-3-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com
Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
memfd: do not -EACCES old memfd_create() users with vm.memfd_noexec=2 2023-08-21T20:37:59+00:00 Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com 2023-08-14T08:40:58+00:00 202e14222fadb246dfdf182e67de1518e86a1e20 Given the difficulty of auditing all of userspace to figure out whether every memfd_create() user has switched to passing MFD_EXEC and MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL flags, it seems far less distruptive to make it possible for older programs that don't make use of executable memfds to run under vm.memfd_noexec=2. Otherwise, a small dependency change can result in spurious errors. For programs that don't use executable memfds, passing MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is functionally a no-op and thus having the same In addition, every failure under vm.memfd_noexec=2 needs to print to the kernel log so that userspace can figure out where the error came from. The concerns about pr_warn_ratelimited() spam that caused the switch to pr_warn_once()[1,2] do not apply to the vm.memfd_noexec=2 case. This is a user-visible API change, but as it allows programs to do something that would be blocked before, and the sysctl itself was broken and recently released, it seems unlikely this will cause any issues. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/202212161233.85C9783FB@keescook/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-2-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC") Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
Given the difficulty of auditing all of userspace to figure out whether
every memfd_create() user has switched to passing MFD_EXEC and
MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL flags, it seems far less distruptive to make it possible
for older programs that don't make use of executable memfds to run under
vm.memfd_noexec=2.  Otherwise, a small dependency change can result in
spurious errors.  For programs that don't use executable memfds, passing
MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is functionally a no-op and thus having the same

In addition, every failure under vm.memfd_noexec=2 needs to print to the
kernel log so that userspace can figure out where the error came from. 
The concerns about pr_warn_ratelimited() spam that caused the switch to
pr_warn_once()[1,2] do not apply to the vm.memfd_noexec=2 case.

This is a user-visible API change, but as it allows programs to do
something that would be blocked before, and the sysctl itself was broken
and recently released, it seems unlikely this will cause any issues.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/202212161233.85C9783FB@keescook/

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230814-memfd-vm-noexec-uapi-fixes-v2-2-7ff9e3e10ba6@cyphar.com
Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
mm/memfd: sysctl: fix MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED 2023-08-18T17:12:11+00:00 Jeff Xu jeffxu@google.com 2023-07-05T06:33:14+00:00 72de259130229412ca49871e70ffaf17dc9fba98 Patch series "mm/memfd: fix sysctl MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED", v2. When sysctl vm.memfd_noexec is 2 (MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED), memfd_create(.., MFD_EXEC) should fail. This complies with how MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED is defined - "memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected" Thanks to Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> who reported the bug. see [1] for context. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CABi2SkXUX_QqTQ10Yx9bBUGpN1wByOi_=gZU6WEy5a8MaQY3Jw@mail.gmail.com/T/ This patch (of 2): When vm.memfd_noexec is 2 (MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED), memfd_create(.., MFD_EXEC) should fail. This complies with how MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED is defined - "memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected" Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230705063315.3680666-1-jeffxu@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230705063315.3680666-2-jeffxu@google.com Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC") Reported-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CABi2SkXUX_QqTQ10Yx9bBUGpN1wByOi_=gZU6WEy5a8MaQY3Jw@mail.gmail.com/T/ Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306301351.kkbSegQW-lkp@intel.com/ Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
Patch series "mm/memfd: fix sysctl MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED", v2.

When sysctl vm.memfd_noexec is 2 (MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED),
memfd_create(.., MFD_EXEC) should fail.

This complies with how MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED is defined -
"memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected"

Thanks to Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> who reported the bug.
see [1] for context.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CABi2SkXUX_QqTQ10Yx9bBUGpN1wByOi_=gZU6WEy5a8MaQY3Jw@mail.gmail.com/T/


This patch (of 2):

When vm.memfd_noexec is 2 (MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED),
memfd_create(.., MFD_EXEC) should fail.

This complies with how MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED is
defined - "memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected"

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230705063315.3680666-1-jeffxu@google.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230705063315.3680666-2-jeffxu@google.com
Fixes: 105ff5339f49 ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
Reported-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CABi2SkXUX_QqTQ10Yx9bBUGpN1wByOi_=gZU6WEy5a8MaQY3Jw@mail.gmail.com/T/
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306301351.kkbSegQW-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
memfd: check for non-NULL file_seals in memfd_create() syscall 2023-06-19T20:19:31+00:00 Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com 2023-06-07T13:24:27+00:00 935d44acf621aa0688fef8312dec3e5940f38f4e Ensure that file_seals is non-NULL before using it in the memfd_create() syscall. One situation in which memfd_file_seals_ptr() could return a NULL pointer when CONFIG_SHMEM=n, oopsing the kernel. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230607132427.2867435-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com Fixes: 47b9012ecdc7 ("shmem: add sealing support to hugetlb-backed memfd") Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Cc: Marc-Andr Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
Ensure that file_seals is non-NULL before using it in the memfd_create()
syscall.  One situation in which memfd_file_seals_ptr() could return a
NULL pointer when CONFIG_SHMEM=n, oopsing the kernel.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230607132427.2867435-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com
Fixes: 47b9012ecdc7 ("shmem: add sealing support to hugetlb-backed memfd")
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Cc: Marc-Andr Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
memfd: pass argument of memfd_fcntl as int 2023-04-18T23:30:11+00:00 Luca Vizzarro Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com 2023-04-14T15:24:58+00:00 f7b8f70ba44fb63df47b6fc3204d49ac2885de64 The interface for fcntl expects the argument passed for the command F_ADD_SEALS to be of type int. The current code wrongly treats it as a long. In order to avoid access to undefined bits, we should explicitly cast the argument to int. This commit changes the signature of all the related and helper functions so that they treat the argument as int instead of long. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230414152459.816046-5-Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com Signed-off-by: Luca Vizzarro <Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Cc: Kevin Brodsky <Kevin.Brodsky@arm.com> Cc: Vincenzo Frascino <Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com> Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
The interface for fcntl expects the argument passed for the command
F_ADD_SEALS to be of type int.  The current code wrongly treats it as a
long.  In order to avoid access to undefined bits, we should explicitly
cast the argument to int.

This commit changes the signature of all the related and helper functions
so that they treat the argument as int instead of long.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230414152459.816046-5-Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Luca Vizzarro <Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Kevin Brodsky <Kevin.Brodsky@arm.com>
Cc: Vincenzo Frascino <Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com>
Cc: Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
mm/memfd: add write seals when apply SEAL_EXEC to executable memfd 2023-01-19T01:12:37+00:00 Jeff Xu jeffxu@google.com 2022-12-15T00:12:04+00:00 c4f75bc8bd6b3d62665e1f5400c419540edb5601 In order to avoid WX mappings, add F_SEAL_WRITE when apply F_SEAL_EXEC to an executable memfd, so W^X from start. This implys application need to fill the content of the memfd first, after F_SEAL_EXEC is applied, application can no longer modify the content of the memfd. Typically, application seals the memfd right after writing to it. For example: 1. memfd_create(MFD_EXEC). 2. write() code to the memfd. 3. fcntl(F_ADD_SEALS, F_SEAL_EXEC) to convert the memfd to W^X. 4. call exec() on the memfd. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-5-jeffxu@google.com Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org> Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
In order to avoid WX mappings, add F_SEAL_WRITE when apply F_SEAL_EXEC to
an executable memfd, so W^X from start.

This implys application need to fill the content of the memfd first, after
F_SEAL_EXEC is applied, application can no longer modify the content of
the memfd.

Typically, application seals the memfd right after writing to it.
For example:
1. memfd_create(MFD_EXEC).
2. write() code to the memfd.
3. fcntl(F_ADD_SEALS, F_SEAL_EXEC) to convert the memfd to W^X.
4. call exec() on the memfd.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-5-jeffxu@google.com
Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC 2023-01-19T01:12:37+00:00 Jeff Xu jeffxu@google.com 2022-12-15T00:12:03+00:00 105ff5339f498af74e60d7662c8f1c4d21f1342d The new MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC flags allows application to set executable bit at creation time (memfd_create). When MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is set, memfd is created without executable bit (mode:0666), and sealed with F_SEAL_EXEC, so it can't be chmod to be executable (mode: 0777) after creation. when MFD_EXEC flag is set, memfd is created with executable bit (mode:0777), this is the same as the old behavior of memfd_create. The new pid namespaced sysctl vm.memfd_noexec has 3 values: 0: memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL acts like MFD_EXEC was set. 1: memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL acts like MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL was set. 2: memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected. The sysctl allows finer control of memfd_create for old-software that doesn't set the executable bit, for example, a container with vm.memfd_noexec=1 means the old-software will create non-executable memfd by default. Also, the value of memfd_noexec is passed to child namespace at creation time. For example, if the init namespace has vm.memfd_noexec=2, all its children namespaces will be created with 2. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: add stub functions to fix build] [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove unneeded register_pid_ns_ctl_table_vm() stub, per Jeff] [akpm@linux-foundation.org: s/pr_warn_ratelimited/pr_warn_once/, per review] [akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix CONFIG_SYSCTL=n warning] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-4-jeffxu@google.com Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Co-developed-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
The new MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC flags allows application to set
executable bit at creation time (memfd_create).

When MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is set, memfd is created without executable bit
(mode:0666), and sealed with F_SEAL_EXEC, so it can't be chmod to be
executable (mode: 0777) after creation.

when MFD_EXEC flag is set, memfd is created with executable bit
(mode:0777), this is the same as the old behavior of memfd_create.

The new pid namespaced sysctl vm.memfd_noexec has 3 values:
0: memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL acts like
        MFD_EXEC was set.
1: memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL acts like
        MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL was set.
2: memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected.

The sysctl allows finer control of memfd_create for old-software that
doesn't set the executable bit, for example, a container with
vm.memfd_noexec=1 means the old-software will create non-executable memfd
by default.  Also, the value of memfd_noexec is passed to child namespace
at creation time.  For example, if the init namespace has
vm.memfd_noexec=2, all its children namespaces will be created with 2.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: add stub functions to fix build]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove unneeded register_pid_ns_ctl_table_vm() stub, per Jeff]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: s/pr_warn_ratelimited/pr_warn_once/, per review]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix CONFIG_SYSCTL=n warning]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-4-jeffxu@google.com
Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Co-developed-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
mm/memfd: add F_SEAL_EXEC 2023-01-19T01:12:37+00:00 Daniel Verkamp dverkamp@chromium.org 2022-12-15T00:12:01+00:00 6fd7353829cafc4067aad9eea0dc95da67e7df16 Patch series "mm/memfd: introduce MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC", v8. Since Linux introduced the memfd feature, memfd have always had their execute bit set, and the memfd_create() syscall doesn't allow setting it differently. However, in a secure by default system, such as ChromeOS, (where all executables should come from the rootfs, which is protected by Verified boot), this executable nature of memfd opens a door for NoExec bypass and enables “confused deputy attack”. E.g, in VRP bug [1]: cros_vm process created a memfd to share the content with an external process, however the memfd is overwritten and used for executing arbitrary code and root escalation. [2] lists more VRP in this kind. On the other hand, executable memfd has its legit use, runc uses memfd’s seal and executable feature to copy the contents of the binary then execute them, for such system, we need a solution to differentiate runc's use of executable memfds and an attacker's [3]. To address those above, this set of patches add following: 1> Let memfd_create() set X bit at creation time. 2> Let memfd to be sealed for modifying X bit. 3> A new pid namespace sysctl: vm.memfd_noexec to control the behavior of X bit.For example, if a container has vm.memfd_noexec=2, then memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected. 4> A new security hook in memfd_create(). This make it possible to a new LSM, which rejects or allows executable memfd based on its security policy. This patch (of 5): The new F_SEAL_EXEC flag will prevent modification of the exec bits: written as traditional octal mask, 0111, or as named flags, S_IXUSR | S_IXGRP | S_IXOTH. Any chmod(2) or similar call that attempts to modify any of these bits after the seal is applied will fail with errno EPERM. This will preserve the execute bits as they are at the time of sealing, so the memfd will become either permanently executable or permanently un-executable. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-1-jeffxu@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-2-jeffxu@google.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org> Co-developed-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 
Patch series "mm/memfd: introduce MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC", v8.

Since Linux introduced the memfd feature, memfd have always had their
execute bit set, and the memfd_create() syscall doesn't allow setting it
differently.

However, in a secure by default system, such as ChromeOS, (where all
executables should come from the rootfs, which is protected by Verified
boot), this executable nature of memfd opens a door for NoExec bypass and
enables “confused deputy attack”.  E.g, in VRP bug [1]: cros_vm
process created a memfd to share the content with an external process,
however the memfd is overwritten and used for executing arbitrary code and
root escalation.  [2] lists more VRP in this kind.

On the other hand, executable memfd has its legit use, runc uses memfd’s
seal and executable feature to copy the contents of the binary then
execute them, for such system, we need a solution to differentiate runc's
use of executable memfds and an attacker's [3].

To address those above, this set of patches add following:
1> Let memfd_create() set X bit at creation time.
2> Let memfd to be sealed for modifying X bit.
3> A new pid namespace sysctl: vm.memfd_noexec to control the behavior of
   X bit.For example, if a container has vm.memfd_noexec=2, then
   memfd_create() without MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL will be rejected.
4> A new security hook in memfd_create(). This make it possible to a new
   LSM, which rejects or allows executable memfd based on its security policy.


This patch (of 5):

The new F_SEAL_EXEC flag will prevent modification of the exec bits:
written as traditional octal mask, 0111, or as named flags, S_IXUSR |
S_IXGRP | S_IXOTH.  Any chmod(2) or similar call that attempts to modify
any of these bits after the seal is applied will fail with errno EPERM.

This will preserve the execute bits as they are at the time of sealing, so
the memfd will become either permanently executable or permanently
un-executable.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-1-jeffxu@google.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221215001205.51969-2-jeffxu@google.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
Co-developed-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Jorge Lucangeli Obes <jorgelo@chromium.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>