Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO commandwhitelist (CVE-2012-4542)

[Douglas Gilbert]

On 13-02-13 03:32 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 06/02/2013 16:15, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> > This series regards the whitelist that is used for the SG_IO ioctl.  This
> > whitelist has three problems:
> >
> > * the bitmap of allowed commands is designed for MMC devices (roughly,
> >    "play/burn CDs without requiring root") but some opcodes overlap across SCSI
> >    device classes and have different meanings for different classes.
> >
> > * also because the bitmap of allowed commands is designed for MMC devices
> >    only, some commands are missing even though they are generally useful and
> >    not insecure.  At least not more insecure than anything else you can
> >    do if you have access to /dev/sdX or /dev/stX nodes.
> >
> > * the whitelist can be disabled per-process but not per-disk.  In addition,
> >    the required capability (CAP_SYS_RAWIO) gives access to a range of other
> >    resources, enough to make it insecure.
> >
> > The series corrects these problems.  Patches 1-4 solve the first problem,
> > which also has an assigned CVE, by using different bitmaps for the various
> > device classes.  Patches 5-11 solve the second by adding more commands
> > to the bitmaps.  Patches 12 and 13 solve the third, and were already
> > posted but ignored by the maintainers despite multiple pings.
> >
> > Note: checkpatch hates the formatting of the command table.  I know about this,
> > and ensured that there are no errors in the rest of the code.  The current
> > formatting is IMHO quite handy, and roughly based on the files available
> > from the SCSI standard body.
> >
> > Ok for the next merge window?
> >
> > Paolo
> >
> > v1->v2: remove 2 MMC commands and 6 SBC commands (see patches 6 and 9
> >          for details).  Added patch 14 and added a few more scanner
> >          commands based on SANE (scanners are not whitelisted by default,
> >          also were not in v1, but this makes it possible to opt into the
> >          whitelist out of paranoia).  Removed C++ comments.  Removed the
> >          large #if 0'd list of commands that the kernel does not pass
> >          though.  Marked blk_set_cmd_filter_defaults as __init.
> >
> >
> > Paolo Bonzini (14):
> >    sg_io: pass request_queue to blk_verify_command
> >    sg_io: reorganize list of allowed commands
> >    sg_io: use different default filters for each device class
> >    sg_io: resolve conflicts between commands assigned to multiple
> >      classes (CVE-2012-4542)
> >    sg_io: whitelist a few more commands for rare & obsolete device types
> >    sg_io: whitelist another command for multimedia devices
> >    sg_io: whitelist a few more commands for media changers
> >    sg_io: whitelist a few more commands for tapes
> >    sg_io: whitelist a few more commands for disks
> >    sg_io: whitelist a few obsolete commands
> >    sg_io: mark blk_set_cmd_filter_defaults as __init
> >    sg_io: remove remnants of sysfs SG_IO filters
> >    sg_io: introduce unpriv_sgio queue flag
> >    sg_io: use unpriv_sgio to disable whitelisting for scanners
> >
> >   Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt |    8 +
> >   block/blk-sysfs.c                   |   33 +++
> >   block/bsg.c                         |    2 +-
> >   block/scsi_ioctl.c                  |  369 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >   drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c            |   14 ++-
> >   drivers/scsi/sg.c                   |    6 +-
> >   include/linux/blkdev.h              |    8 +-
> >   include/linux/genhd.h               |    9 -
> >   include/scsi/scsi.h                 |    3 +
> >   9 files changed, 344 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
>
> Ping? I'm not even sure what tree this should host these patches...

You are whitelisting SCSI commands so obviously the SCSI tree
and the patch spills over into the block tree.
Can't see much point in ack-ing the sg changes since most
of the action is at higher levels.

The question I have is what existing code will this change
break (and will I being getting emails from peeved
developers)?

Is 8 lines of documentation changes enough? My guess is
that SG_IO ioctl pass-through users will be tripped up
and it won't be obvious to them to look at
    Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
for enlightenment; especially if they are using a char
device node from the bsg, sg or st drivers to issue SG_IO.

Doug Gilbert

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/