Bug 232371 - SELinux: problem debugging bind.
Summary: SELinux: problem debugging bind.
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: kernel   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Eric Paris
QA Contact: Ben Levenson
: 326801 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 256361
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-03-15 01:15 UTC by Dave Jones
Modified: 2015-01-04 22:29 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-10-25 20:18:14 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Testcase NOT reproducing anything. (2.55 KB, text/plain)
2007-03-15 15:06 UTC, Jan Kratochvil
no flags Details
gdb-6.6-5 debugging patch I did not intend to ever publish. (1.74 KB, patch)
2007-03-15 23:17 UTC, Jan Kratochvil
no flags Details | Diff
kernel patch, maybe not exactly right (452 bytes, patch)
2007-03-21 01:21 UTC, Roland McGrath
no flags Details | Diff

Description Dave Jones 2007-03-15 01:15:44 UTC
Whilst trying to attach to the running 'named' process, I got this..

../../gdb/linux-nat.c:1014: internal-error: lin_lwp_attach_lwp: Assertion `pid
== GET_LWP (ptid) && WIFSTOPPED (status)' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.

This is with the 2.6.20 FC6 kernel, which isn't the latest utrace, but pretty close.

After detaching again, named went into a weird state, where it claimed to be
running, however, it wasn't resolving addresses any more, and the process
couldn't be killed.

Comment 1 Roland McGrath 2007-03-15 01:47:12 UTC
I easily reproduced the same gdb lossage.  When I quit gdb so it detached, the
named process was stopped and responded normally to kill -9 or -CONT.  Can you
give more details about this "weird state" (ps, /proc/PID/status, details of
behavior when you try kills of various sorts, etc)?  That was on my development
kernel build (which is PREEMPT among other things); on 2.6.20-1.2925.fc6 it
didn't even leave it stopped, it was just working completely fine (answered a
query from dig).

I'll let Jan figure out what happened that confused gdb.  That might be a ptrace
misbehavior, but I'll have to know what results it delivered to userland to say.

Comment 2 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-15 15:06:32 UTC
Created attachment 150130 [details]
Testcase NOT reproducing anything.

On kernel-2.6.20-1.2925.fc6.x86_64 (and kernel-2.6.18-1.2798.fc6.x86_64) I get
from GDB (FC6 or RawHide):

ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 6816, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(6816, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 6816
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 6822, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(6822, 0x7fffbb94163c, 0, NULL)	= -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
wait4(6822, 0x7fffbb94163c, __WCLONE, NULL) = -1 ECHILD (No child processes)

The last wait4() should be successful.	Unfortunaly the attached testcase

ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 8582, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(8582, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 8582
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 8583, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(8583, 0x7fff8a10cfac, 0, NULL)	= -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
wait4(8583, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], __WCLONE, NULL) = 8583

It is IMO a kernel bug although I am not aware of some abvious reproducibility

GREPped strace(1) dump of GDB:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 2994, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(2994, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 2994
ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGS, 2994, 0, 0x7fff9149a130) = 0
ptrace(0x4200 /* PTRACE_??? */, 2994, 0, 0x2) = 0
wait4(3009, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 3009
ptrace(0x4200 /* PTRACE_??? */, 3009, 0, 0x2) = 0
ptrace(0x4200 /* PTRACE_??? */, 3009, 0, 0x22) = 0
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, 3009, 0, SIG_0)	= 0
wait4(3009, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGTRAP} | 0x10000], 0, NULL) =
ptrace(0x4201 /* PTRACE_??? */, 3009, 0, 0x7fff9149a7b8) = 0
wait4(3010, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 3010
ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, 3010, 0, 0) 	= 0
wait4(3010, [{WIFSIGNALED(s) && WTERMSIG(s) == SIGKILL}], 0, NULL) = 3010
ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, 3009, 0, 0) 	= 0
wait4(3009, [{WIFEXITED(s) && WEXITSTATUS(s) == 0}], 0, NULL) = 3009
ptrace(0x4200 /* PTRACE_??? */, 2994, 0, 0x3e) = 0
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 3000, 0, 0)	= 0
wait4(3000, 0x7fff91499adc, 0, NULL)	= -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
wait4(3000, 0x7fff91499adc, __WCLONE, NULL) = -1 ECHILD (No child processes)

Comment 3 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-15 22:53:40 UTC
Roland, I am sorry but on
this bug is still present the same way.
FYI the bug is not reproducible on kernel-xen-2.6.19-1.2898.2.3.fc7.i686
although I did not test if it is x86_64 (vs. i686) related at all.

Comment 4 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-15 23:17:31 UTC
Created attachment 150183 [details]
gdb-6.6-5 debugging patch I did not intend to ever publish.

Comment 5 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-15 23:47:19 UTC
According to Roland's analysis it is caused by selinux's AVC:
avc:  denied  { signal } for  pid=2803 comm="gdb"
tcontext=root:system_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tclass=process

It is right GDB should fail.  Just it should provide a more meaningful error
message to the user, according to Roland.  Going to patch GDB appropriately.

Comment 6 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-16 00:51:04 UTC
Committed to RawHide; still open as waiting to be pushed for FC6 later:
* Thu Mar 15 2007 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> - 6.6-7
- Suggest SELinux permissions problem; no assertion failure anymore (BZ 232371).

Comment 7 Roland McGrath 2007-03-16 01:07:02 UTC
There is at least an selinux policy bug here, and perhaps it should be
considered a kernel bug (in the selinux code).  selinux's security_task_wait
chooses what AV to check based on child->exit_signal, which is -1 in NPTL
threads being waited for by ptrace.  Since such threads also send SIGCHLD via
ptrace rather than the bogus signal -1, perhaps it should be checking against
SIGCHLD if ptraced.  But it makes more sense to me for the wait check always to
be PROCESS__SIGCHLD rather than PROCESS__SIGNAL, even for a process using a
strange exit_signal.

Comment 8 Roland McGrath 2007-03-16 01:08:29 UTC
Verified it behaves the same way using a vanilla upstream kernel.

Comment 9 Jan Kratochvil 2007-03-16 16:44:59 UTC
Sorry, Roland, but I am really not going to try judge selinux myself.
selinux: As far as I understand Comment 7 the waitpid(2) execution should not be
restricted so much as sending a signal is.

Comment 10 Daniel Walsh 2007-03-20 14:50:18 UTC
I am not sure this is an SELinux problem.  Being able to sens a signal from a
confined app to an unconfined app is bad.  So either this should be moved to gdb
or I am going to close this.  

In order to debug this you would either need to run named outside of a locked
down more, put the machine in permissive mode or add a local policy customization.

Comment 11 Roland McGrath 2007-03-20 17:34:01 UTC
SELinux core bug: PROCESS__SIGNAL instead of PROCESS__SIGCHLD vector used even
though SIGCHLD is the signal actually sent.

Policy bug: policy permits ptrace on named, but does not permit the waits on
named that are necessary for ptrace to be usable.  This is internally inconsistent.

Comment 12 Daniel Walsh 2007-03-20 18:10:35 UTC
So you are saying this is a kernel bug?  

Comment 13 Roland McGrath 2007-03-20 18:27:04 UTC
I've said two things seem wrong.  Perhaps there is no policy preventing the wait
once the kernel is changed to use PROCESS__SIGCHLD for that permission check. 
However, a debugger also needs to use kill sometimes.  It makes no sense to have
a policy that permits ptrace but denies kill.

Comment 14 Daniel Walsh 2007-03-20 22:58:44 UTC
gdm is running unconfined_t so it can send the kill signal to bind_t,  The
problem reported above was named_t sending a signal to unconfined_t.

Comment 15 Roland McGrath 2007-03-21 01:16:02 UTC
I see.  In that case, it looks like policy is OK and there is only the kernel bug.
Indeed, when I try a kernel changed to test the PROCESS__SIGCHLD av instead, the
test scenario works fine.

This should be reassigned to whoever handles SELinux issues in the kernel.
I think we also want a RHEL5 clone of this bug.

Comment 16 Roland McGrath 2007-03-21 01:21:32 UTC
Created attachment 150546 [details]
kernel patch, maybe not exactly right

This is the patch I experimented with.	Note this code will look different in
an upstream kernel without utrace (i.e. vs FC-6 and RHEL-5).  This gets it
closer to testing the signal that actually gets sent, but it still does not
match in all cases.  For example, all stops send SIGCHLD and not exit_signal,
so it could check p->exit_state or something.  To me, it really does not make
sense to restrict the wait call based on the exit_signal setting.  I understand
the rationale that the non-SIGCHLD signal will not have been sent if policy
denied it, but denying wait doesn't make the child not exist or no longer need
to be waited for.  This should be resolved upstream with SELinux folks, please
CC me on that email.

Comment 17 Stephen Smalley 2007-03-21 17:48:38 UTC
Possibly we should just alway check SIGCHLD on task_wait and leave the precise
signal checking to the task_kill hook only.  Logically policy should only allow
the parent to wait on the child if the child is also allowed to deliver its exit
signal to the parent for notification, so there was no reason to introduce a
separate wait permission from parent to child; we could just apply the
signal-based check from child to parent.  Likely requires reparenting the child
to init in the denied case too.


Comment 19 Jan Kratochvil 2007-05-30 17:31:01 UTC
For James Morris:
(In reply to comment #18)
> Should be fixed by 

Tried to build patched kernel-2.6.20-1.2954.fc6.x86_64 but no change seen,
kernel available incl. its .src.rpm at:

The process / first task:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 2532, 0, 0)       = 0
wait4(2532, [{WIFSTOPPED(s) && WSTOPSIG(s) == SIGSTOP}], 0, NULL) = 2532
The first (second) thread:
write(1, "[New Thread 1115699520 (LWP 2536)]\n", 35) = 35
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, 2536, 0, 0)       = 0
wait4(2536, 0x7fff0bfc53e4, 0, NULL)    = -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
wait4(2536, 0x7fff0bfc53e4, __WCLONE, NULL) = -1 ECHILD (No child processes)
write(1, "../../gdb/linux-nat.c:1002: internal-error: lin_lwp_attach_lwp:
Assertion `pid == GET_LWP (ptid) && WIFSTOPPED (status) && WSTOPSIG (status)\'
failed.\n", 150) = 150

kernel: audit(1180545694.371:12): avc:  denied  { signal } for  pid=2544
comm="gdb" scontext=root:system_r:named_t:s0
tcontext=root:system_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tclass=process

Not sure if I miss something but it still gives ECHILD.

Comment 20 Roland McGrath 2007-05-30 20:48:36 UTC
I just tried this on a vanilla upstream kernel du jour.  The second wait4 (with
__WCLONE) returned EACCES, not ECHILD.

Comment 21 Eric Paris 2007-10-10 20:00:59 UTC
So in the last couple of days this has bitten me and a couple other people. 
I'll take another look.

Comment 22 Daniel Walsh 2007-10-11 14:12:56 UTC
*** Bug 326801 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 23 Eric Paris 2007-10-11 15:31:37 UTC
A patch based on comment #16 solved this problem with a 2.6.23 kernel.   Does
anyone have thoughts if we want to always check SIGCHLD or follow this patch and
just check SIGCHLD when we know that's what it will be?

Comment 24 Stephen Smalley 2007-10-11 17:37:23 UTC
I'd favor keeping it simple and consistent - always check PROCESS__SIGCHLD in

Comment 26 Eric Paris 2007-10-25 20:18:14 UTC
A fix has been committed in F-8 kernels and it has been accepted into linus's

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.