[capsicum] unlinkfd

Ben Laurie benl at google.com
Sat Mar 3 11:21:31 UTC 2018

On 2 March 2018 at 18:35, Mariusz Zaborski <oshogbo at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> Today I would like to propose a new syscall called unlinkfd(2) which came
> up
> during a discussion with Ed Maste.
> Currently in UNIX we can’t remove files safely. If we will try to do so we
> always end up in a race condition. For example when we open a file, and
> check
> it with fstat, etc. then we want to unlink(2) it… but the file we are
> trying to
> unlink could be a different one than the one we were fstating just a
> moment ago.
> Another reason of implementing unlinkfd(2) came to us when we were trying
> to sandbox some applications like: uudecode/b64decode or bspatch. It
> occured
> to us that we don’t have a good way of removing single files. Of course we
> can
> try to determine in which directory we are in, and then open this
> directory and
> remove a single file.
> It looks even more bizarre if we would think about a program which
> operates on
> multiple files. If we would analyze a situation with two totally different
> directories like `/tmp` and `/home/oshogbo` we would end up with pre
> opening
> a root directory or keeping as many directories as we are working on open.
> All of that effort only to remove two files. This make it totally
> impractical!
> I think that opening directories also presents some wider attack vector
> because
> we are keeping a single descriptor to a directory only to remove one file.
> Unfortunately this means that an attacker can remove all files in that
> directory.
> I proposed this as well on the last Capsicum call. There was a suggestion
> that
> instead of doing a single syscall maybe we should have a Casper service
> that
> will allow us to remove files. Another idea was that we should perhaps
> redesign
> programs to create some subdirs work on the subdirs and then remove all
> files in
> this subdir. I don’t feel that creating a Casper service is a good idea
> because
> we still have exactly the same issue of race condition. In my opinion
> creating
> subdirs is also a problem for us.
> First we would need to redesign some of our tools and I think we should
> simplyfiy capsicumizition of the process instead of making it harder.
> Secondly we can create a temporary subdirectory but what will remove it?
> We are going back to having a fd to directory in which we just created a
> subdir.
> Another way would be to have Casper service which would remove a directory
> but
> with the risk of RC.
> In conclusion, I think we need syscall like unlinkfd(2), which turn out
> taht it
> is easy to implement. The only downside of this implementation is that we
> not
> only need to provide a fd but also a path file. This is because inodes nor
> vnodes don’t contain filenames. We are comparing vnodes of the fd and the
> given
> path, if they are exactly the same we remove a file. In the syscall we are
> using
> a fd so there is no Ambient Authority because we are proving that we
> already
> have access to that file.

That seems incorrect. You are proving you have access to the inode, not the
directory entry. So, for example, I could create a link to a file I wanted
to remove, that I don't have permission to remove, then use this call to
unlink it.

> Thanks to that the syscall can be safely used with
> Caspsicum. I have already discussed this with some people and they said
> `Hey I already had that idea a while ago…` so let’s do something with that
> idea!
> If you are intereted in patch you can find it here:
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14567
> Thanks,
> --
> Mariusz Zaborski
> oshogbo//vx             | http://oshogbo.vexillium.org
> FreeBSD commiter        | https://freebsd.org
> Software developer      | http://wheelsystems.com
> If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is!!1

More information about the freebsd-hackers mailing list