[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/prctl06.c: New test for prctl() with PR_{SET, GET}_NO_NEW_PRIVS

[Yang Xu]

Hi Cyril
   Sorry for the late reply.

> Hi!
>> +#define IPC_ENV_VAR "LTP_IPC_PATH"
>> +
>> +static void check_no_new_privs(int val)
>> +{
>> +	TEST(prctl(PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 0, 0, 0, 0));
>> +	if (TST_RET == val)
>> +		tst_res(TPASS,
>> +			"prctl(PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS) got %d "
>> +			"when no_new_privs was %d", val, val);
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
>> +			"prctl(PR_GET_NO_NEW_PRIVS) expected %d got %ld",
>> +			val, TST_RET);
>> +	return;
> This return is useless.
OK. I will remove it and add check for /proc/[pid]/status for NoNewPrivs.

>> +}
>> +
>> +static void do_prctl(void)
>> +{
>> +	char path[4096];
>> +	char ipc_env_var[1024];
>> +	char *const argv[] = {"prctl06_execve", "parent process", NULL};
>> +	char *const childargv[] = {"prctl06_execve", "child process", NULL};
>> +	char *const envp[] = {"LTP_TEST_ENV_VAR=test", ipc_env_var, NULL };
>> +	cap_t caps = cap_init();
>> +	cap_value_t capList = CAP_SETGID;
>> +	unsigned int num_caps = 1;
>> +	int childpid;
>> +
>> +	cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, num_caps,&capList, CAP_SET);
>> +	cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_INHERITABLE, num_caps,&capList, CAP_SET);
>> +	cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_PERMITTED, num_caps,&capList, CAP_SET);
>> +
>> +	if (cap_set_proc(caps))
>> +		tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO,
>> +			"cap_set_flag(CAP_SETGID) failed");
> You cannot use tst_brk with TFAIL, the best you can do here is to use
> tst_ret(TFAIL ... ) then return; as you do below.
>
I got it.

>> +	tst_res(TINFO, "cap_set_flag(CAP_SETGID) succeeded");
>> +
>> +	check_no_new_privs(0);
>> +
>> +	TEST(prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0));
>> +	if (TST_RET == -1) {
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS) failed");
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +	tst_res(TPASS, "prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS) succeeded");
>> +
>> +	check_no_new_privs(1);
>> +
>> +	if (tst_get_path("prctl06_execve", path, sizeof(path)))
>> +		tst_brk(TCONF, "Couldn't find prctl_execve in $PATH");
> If the path to the binary is in $PATH you don't have to execute the
> binary by an absolute path, passing it's name to execve() should
> suffice.
>
  It sounds reasonable. I will pass binary_name directly.

>> +	sprintf(ipc_env_var, IPC_ENV_VAR "=%s", getenv(IPC_ENV_VAR));
>> +	childpid = SAFE_FORK();
>> +	if (childpid == 0) {
>> +		check_no_new_privs(1);
> 		Maybe we can pass a "child" string here and "parent"
> 		string in the cases above so that we can print if the
> 		check was done in child/parent in the tst_res() inside
> 		of this function.
>
Ok. Pass a "child" or "parent" string can make it more clear for user.

>> +		execve(path, childargv, envp);
>> +		tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO,
>> +			"child process failed to execute prctl_execve");
>> +
>> +	} else {
>> +		tst_reap_children();
>> +		execve(path, argv, envp);
>> +		tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO,
>> +			"parent process failed to execute prctl_execve");
>> +	}
>> +	cap_free(caps);
>> +	return;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void verify_prctl(void)
>> +{
>> +	int pid;
>> +
>> +	pid = SAFE_FORK();
>> +	if (pid == 0) {
>> +		do_prctl();
>> +		exit(0);
>> +	}
>> +	tst_reap_children();
>> +	return;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct tst_test test = {
>> +	.test_all = verify_prctl,
>> +	.forks_child = 1,
>> +	.needs_root = 1,
>> +	.child_needs_reinit = 1,
>> +};
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl06_execve.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl06_execve.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..84c28551c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl06_execve.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2019 FUJITSU LIMITED. All rights reserved.
>> + * Author: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> + *
>> + * dummy program which is used by prctl06 testcase
>> + */
>> +#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN
>> +#include<stdlib.h>
>> +#include<sys/types.h>
>> +#include<unistd.h>
>> +#include<errno.h>
>> +#include<pwd.h>
>> +#include "tst_test.h"
>> +
>> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> +{
>> +	struct passwd *pw;
>> +	uid_t nobody_uid;
>> +	gid_t nobody_gid;
>> +
>> +	tst_reinit();
>> +	if (argc != 2)
>> +		tst_brk(TFAIL, "argc is %d, expected 2", argc);
>> +
>> +	pw = SAFE_GETPWNAM("nobody");
>> +	nobody_uid = pw->pw_uid;
>> +	nobody_gid = pw->pw_gid;
>> +	/*positive check*/
>> +	TEST(setgid(nobody_gid));
>> +	if (TST_RET == -1)
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO,
>> +			"%s setgid(%d) isn't permmit", argv[1], nobody_gid);
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res(TPASS, "%s setgid(%d) succeed expectedly",
>> +			argv[1], nobody_gid);
>> +	/*negative check*/
>> +	TEST(setuid(nobody_uid));
>> +	if (TST_RET == -1)
>> +		tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO,
>> +			"%s setuid(%d) isn't permmit", argv[1], nobody_uid);
>> +	else
>> +		tst_res(TFAIL, " %s setuid(%d) succeed unexpectedly",
>> +			argv[1], nobody_gid);
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> I do not think that this is actually testing the prctl in question. Here
> we actually check that capabilities were inherited over fork() + exec().
>
> As far as I understand the PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS it has been designed
> expecially to avoid misuse of capabilities associated with a particular
> file.
>
> So the check would have to do:
>
> 1. copy the prctl06_execve binary to a $PWD
> 2. chmod it with S_ISUID, S_ISGID
> 3. the prct06_execve would be executed under user/group nobody
> 4. the prct06_execve itself would check if it gained root priviledges
>
I have seen documention about PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS.  I think your way is right. But I have reset this capabilities
and only keep CAP_SETGID, so when I set no_new_privs to 1, prctl06_execve inherits CAP_SETGID but not gain CAP_SETUID.


> And we can do the same for capablities as well.
>
> I guess that we would have to format a device and mount it with support
> for capabilities for the test, since as far as I can tell you cannot
> usually do neither of set-usr-id or add capabilites to files in /tmp/.
Yes. In /tmp, these make no sense. I will follow by your advise.

Thanks
Yang Xu