On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 12:03 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 12/01/2017 02:26 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 10:43 -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > Noticed the following denial in audit.log when shutting down
> > an apparmor confined domain
> >
> > type=AVC msg=audit(1512002299.742:131): apparmor="DENIED"
> > operation="open" profile="libvirt-66154842-e926-4f92-92f0-
> > 1c1bf61dd1ff"
> > name="/proc/1475/cmdline" pid=2958 comm="qemu-system-x86"
> > requested_mask="r" denied_mask="r" fsuid=469 ouid=0
> >
> > Squelch the denial by allowing read access to
> > /proc/<pid>/cmdline.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig(a)suse.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Note: In the audit.log snippet, PID 1475 is libvirtd and 2958 is
> > the
> > qemu process. I must admit it is not clear to me why
> > /proc/<libvirtd-pid>/cmdline is read on domain shutdown.
> >
> > examples/apparmor/libvirt-qemu | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/examples/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> > b/examples/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> > index 73bdbae87..3d9eed9ec 100644
> > --- a/examples/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> > +++ b/examples/apparmor/libvirt-qemu
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > /dev/ptmx rw,
> > /dev/kqemu rw,
> > @{PROC}/*/status r,
> > + @{PROC}/@{pid}/cmdline r,
>
> Note this is an information leak and allows reading potentially
> sensitive information, such as passwords given on the command line.
> Eg:
>
> $ cat /proc/13335/cmdline | tr '\0' ' '
> sh /tmp/testme --password=sensitive
Well, I'd say that passing passwords (or any sensitive information)
through command line is doomed by definition. Anybody can read that
(doing mere ps is enough).
>
> Would it be possible to use 'owner' match? Eg:
>
> owner @{PROC}/@{pid}/cmdline r,
Okay, this narrows the attack surface, but I guess that somebody else
doing `ps' on the system will be able to obtain the password anyway.
Sure, but what is different here is that the qemu processes are
intended to be confined/untrusted whereas other processes on the system
(eg, the user's shell) are not. Therefore, IMO, we should try to avoid
information leaks in the qemu policy where possible.
--
Jamie Strandboge |
http://www.canonical.com