If the ATTR_KILL_S*ID bits are set then any mode change is only for
clearing the setuid/setgid bits. For NFS skip the mode change and
let the server handle it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
fs/nfs/inode.c | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
index 45633f9..441bd8b 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
@@ -327,6 +327,10 @@ nfs_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *attr)
nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSSETATTR);
+ /* skip mode change if it's just for clearing setuid/setgid */
+ if (attr->ia_valid & (ATTR_KILL_SUID | ATTR_KILL_SGID))
+ attr->ia_valid &= ~ATTR_MODE;
+
if (attr->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) {
if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) || attr->ia_size == i_size_read(inode))
attr->ia_valid &= ~ATTR_SIZE;
--
1.5.2.1
-
You're assuming the server will remove setuid and setgid bits on WRITE? I don't see that behaviour specified in the RFC, at least for v3. The RFC specifies a behaviour for the mtime attribute as a side effect of WRITE, but says nothing about mode. This means server implementations are free to clobber setuid or not. A quick experiment shows that at least the Irix server will *NOT* clobber those bits. So with an Irix server you've now lost this Linux-specific "security feature". I'm curious about the reasons behind this change. You mention credential issues; how exactly is it that you have the correct creds to perform a WRITE rpc but not a SETATTR rpc? Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Apparently, I'm Bedevere. Which MPHG character are you? I don't speak for SGI. -
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:25:45 +1000 Consider this case. user1 and user2 are both members of group "allusers": user1$ echo foo > foo user1$ chgrp allusers foo user1$ chmod 04770 foo user2$ echo bar >> foo On most local filesystems, this would work correctly. The end result would be a file with mode 0770 and the expected contents. On NFS though, the write by user2 fails. When the write is attempted, the kernel tries to squash the setuid bit using the credentials of user2, who's not allowed to change the mode. The write then fails because the setattr fails. There are other situations that are similar, but the bottom line is that the linux-specific security feature doesn't work in all cases, and in some situations it means that operations fail where they shouldn't. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> -
Ok, I ran an experiment and I see this failure mode. So the SETATTR rpc is really a side effect of the client kernel's behaviour and not an operation directly requested by the user process on the client. Is there any reason why that rpc needs to have user2's creds? Why not do the rpc with a fake set of creds with uid and gid set to the uid and gid of the file, in this case user1/allusers ? That way the rpc will most likely pass the server's permission check. Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Apparently, I'm Bedevere. Which MPHG character are you? I don't speak for SGI. -
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:09:24 +1000 That might work in some cases, but there are many where it wouldn't... Suppose user1 here is root and all of the user1 operations are being done on the server. If the server has root squashing enabled, then user2's operation would still fail. Another problem: Suppose we're using gssapi. There's no guarantee that the client will have the proper credentials to fake up a call as user1 (you might need user1 krb5 tickets, etc). -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> -
In that case, user1's operations would also fail, which is even more serious a problem. Also arguably you actually *want* writes by a Yes, good point. You could use the root creds, except for root squashing. Ok, you convinced me. Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Apparently, I'm Bedevere. Which MPHG character are you? I don't speak for SGI. -
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:40:33 +1000 Well, user1's operations would fail if done from the client, which is why I mentioned that they would have to be done on the server. The second point is a good one, but POSIX says that it should be allowed if the permissions allow for it. The whole situation is somewhat contrived anyway, I can't think of a place where this is something you'd really want to do, but I think we need to try to follow the spec Right. When I was first looking at this, I considered some similar approaches, but hit roadblocks with all of them. The only real option seems to be to leave this to the server, but that does assume that the server handles this properly. Servers that don't are broken, IMO. If Irix isn't clearing these bits on a write then it might be good to see if they can fix that... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> -
According to what spec? A quick trip around the machine room shows that neither Solaris 10 nor Darwin 7.9.0 clobber setuid on write I think first you'd have to mount a serious argument that it's broken, more serious than "it works differently from Linux". Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Apparently, I'm Bedevere. Which MPHG character are you? I don't speak for SGI. -
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:43:45 +1000
Hmm, last time I checked Solaris, I thought it did, but that was
Solaris 11. I'll plan to fire up my solaris qemu image and test
Good point. POSIX is frustratingly ambiguous on this:
Upon successful completion, where nbyte is greater than 0, write()
shall mark for update the st_ctime and st_mtime fields of the file,
and if the file is a regular file, the S_ISUID and S_ISGID bits of
the file mode may be cleared.
...the "may" in that last sentence makes it optional, I suppose. Even if
it weren't then I guess there's also an argument that a write that comes
in via a nfs server may not be subject to the same semantics as the
write() syscall.
In any case, "broken" is probably too strong a term :-)
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
-
How about: "If IRIX isn't clearing these bits then they're leaving their customers wide open to all sorts of security issues." Unless you make the chmod/chgrp atomic with the write, then there will always be a way for a client to inject data while the setuid/setgid bits are set: basically, it allows said client to rewrite a setuid/setgid executable. We're not fixing this in the client because it isn't fixable on the client. Trond -
