Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports
Hi Santiago !
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Hi again!
> I tried to replicate the problem at home during the weekend with my laptop,
> but I couldn't get it to show links with previous kernels, so I guess I had
> something different on my samba server or similar, I'm at the real machines
> now so I have done the real tests and they look promising. I'm getting
> completely different results than those of Grant, which seems really weird.
> I applied just this patch:
> > > >--- kernel-source-2.4.27.orig/fs/smbfs/proc.c 2007-01-19 17:53:57.247695476 -0700
> > > >+++ kernel-source-2.4.27/fs/smbfs/proc.c 2007-01-19 17:49:07.480161733 -0700
> > > >@@ -1997,7 +1997,7 @@
> > > > fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->dir_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | S_IFDIR;
> > > > else if ( (server->mnt->flags & SMB_MOUNT_FMODE) &&
> > > > !(S_ISDIR(fattr->f_mode)) )
> > > >- fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->file_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | S_IFREG;
> > > >+ fattr->f_mode = (server->mnt->file_mode & (S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) | (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT);
> > > >
> > > > }
> To an unpatched 2.4.34, the client is an IBM NetworkStation 1000 (a PowerPC
> based thin client), and the server is a normal amd64 based PC running
> 22.214.171.124, both running Debian, the client runs Sarge and the Server Etch.
> I'm descriving this to see if differences on the architectures could be
> causing the differences on behaviour between my tests and Grant's.
> > > client running 2.4.34 with above patch, server is running 126.96.36.199 to
> > > eliminate it from the problem space (hopefully ;) :
> > > grant@sempro:/home/other$ uname -r
> > > 2.4.34b
> > > grant@sempro:/home/other$ ls -l
> > > total 9
> > > drwxr-xr-x 1 grant wheel 4096 2007-01-21 11:44 dir/
> > > drwxr-xr-x 1 grant wheel 4096 2007-01-21 11:44 dirlink/
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 grant wheel 15 2007-01-21 11:43 file*
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 grant wheel 15 2007-01-21 11:43 filelink*
> > It seems to me that there is a difference, because filelink now appears the
> > same size as file. It's just as if we had hard links instead of symlinks.
> Here is what I did, I mounted the remote filesystem on /mnt on my client,
> the share on the server has a normal Debian Sarge PowerPC filesystem on it.
> $ pwd
> $ ls -l
> total 0
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Feb 15 2005 X11R6
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 16 2007 bin
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 16 2007 doc
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Feb 10 2005 games
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 16 2007 include
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10 Jan 16 2007 info -> share/info
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 16 2007 lib
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Feb 10 2005 local
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 16 2007 sbin
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Jan 5 2006 share
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Dec 15 2004 src
> $ ls -l info/
> total 249856
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 150109 Jul 16 2004 coreutils.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1299 Jan 16 2007 dir
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1299 Jan 16 2007 dir.old
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 28019 Mar 20 2005 find.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 26136 Nov 22 2004 grep.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12914 Sep 16 2006 gzip.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12316 Sep 18 2005 ipc.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21432 Jan 23 2005 rl5userman.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 26647 Dec 1 2004 sed.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 123382 Dec 1 2006 tar.info.gz
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 54876 May 23 2005 wget.info.gz
> $ cd ../bin
> $ ls -l sh
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4 Jan 16 2007 sh -> bash
> $ dd if=sh bs=1 count=6
> ELF6+0 records in
> 6+0 records out
> 6 bytes transferred in 0.001432 seconds (4190 bytes/sec)
> As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
> In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now
> the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they
> were seen on 2.4.33) but they also work (which didn't happen on 2.4.33).
Why do you consider this a security problem ? Is any user able to create a
device entry with enough permissions ? As a general rule of thumb, networked
file systems should be mounted with the "nodev" option.
> So... for me now the remote filesystem works as if it was a local
> filesystem, without any difference of behaviour, not even on special files
> like devices or whatever.
> As I said before... this behaviour of having the remote device files work...
> seems a security problem and I don't think is desirable, other than that it
> seems to work well on my PowerPC, I'll try to run the tests on a normal x86
> client and report back.
Thanks very much for your tests.
Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel ?
It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm
intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and that it fixed the
problem for Santiago.