[PATCH v8 1/1] ns: add binfmt_misc to the user namespace

Jann Horn jannh at google.com
Mon Dec 16 19:08:52 UTC 2019


On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:12 AM Laurent Vivier <laurent at vivier.eu> wrote:
> This patch allows to have a different binfmt_misc configuration
> for each new user namespace. By default, the binfmt_misc configuration
> is the one of the previous level, but if the binfmt_misc filesystem is
> mounted in the new namespace a new empty binfmt instance is created and
> used in this namespace.
>
> For instance, using "unshare" we can start a chroot of another
> architecture and configure the binfmt_misc interpreter without being root
> to run the binaries in this chroot.

How do you ensure that when userspace is no longer using the user
namespace and mount namespace, the entries and the binfmt_misc
superblock are deleted? As far as I can tell from looking at the code,
at the moment, if I create a user namespace+mount namespace, mount
binfmt_misc in there, register a file format and then let all
processes inside the namespaces exit, the binfmt_misc mount will be
kept alive by the simple_pin_fs() stuff, and the binfmt_misc entries
will also stay in memory.

[...]
> @@ -718,7 +736,9 @@ static ssize_t bm_register_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer,
>         if (!inode)
>                 goto out2;
>
> -       err = simple_pin_fs(&bm_fs_type, &bm_mnt, &entry_count);
> +       ns = binfmt_ns(file_dentry(file)->d_sb->s_user_ns);
> +       err = simple_pin_fs(&bm_fs_type, &ns->bm_mnt,
> +                           &ns->entry_count);

When you call simple_pin_fs() here, the user namespace of `current`
and the user namespace of the superblock are not necessarily related.
So simple_pin_fs() may end up taking a reference on the mountpoint for
a user namespace that has nothing to do with the namespace for which
an entry is being created.

[...]
>  static int bm_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
>  {
>         int err;
> +       struct user_namespace *ns = sb->s_user_ns;
[...]
> +       /* create a new binfmt namespace
> +        * if we are not in the first user namespace
> +        * but the binfmt namespace is the first one
> +        */
> +       if (READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns) == NULL) {

The READ_ONCE() here is unnecessary, right? AFAIK the VFS layer is
going to ensure that bm_fill_super() can't run concurrently for the
same namespace?

> +               struct binfmt_namespace *new_ns;
> +
> +               new_ns = kmalloc(sizeof(struct binfmt_namespace),
> +                                GFP_KERNEL);
> +               if (new_ns == NULL)
> +                       return -ENOMEM;
> +               INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_ns->entries);
> +               new_ns->enabled = 1;
> +               rwlock_init(&new_ns->entries_lock);
> +               new_ns->bm_mnt = NULL;
> +               new_ns->entry_count = 0;
> +               /* ensure new_ns is completely initialized before sharing it */
> +               smp_wmb();
> +               WRITE_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns, new_ns);

Nit: This would be a little bit semantically clearer if you used
smp_store_release() instead of smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE().

> +       }
> +
>         err = simple_fill_super(sb, BINFMTFS_MAGIC, bm_files);
[...]
> +static void bm_free(struct fs_context *fc)
> +{
> +       if (fc->s_fs_info)
> +               put_user_ns(fc->s_fs_info);
> +}

Silly question: Why the "if"? Can you ever reach this with fc->s_fs_info==NULL?

> +
>  static int bm_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc)
>  {
> -       return get_tree_single(fc, bm_fill_super);
> +       return get_tree_keyed(fc, bm_fill_super, get_user_ns(fc->user_ns));

get_user_ns() increments the refcount of the namespace, but in the
case where a binfmt_misc mount already exists, that refcount is never
dropped, right? That would be a security bug, since an attacker could
overflow the refcount of the user namespace and then trigger a UAF.
(And the refcount hardening won't catch it because user namespaces
still use raw atomics instead of refcount_t.)

[...]
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC)

Nit: Isn't this kind of check normally written as "#ifdef"?


More information about the Containers mailing list