Hello
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 02:53:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> No, these issues are not present in 2.6 (using the debian 2.6.8 and the
> debian kernel-patch-vserver, both from sarge). I am trying to find out if
> this is a kernel problem with the debian 2.4.27 kernel in sarge, or a
> vserver patch problem.
Thanks a lot for the information.
Isn't it so that the 2.4 patches follow the old stable branch of util-vserver
while the 2.6 patches followed the development branch?
Regards,
// Ola
> micah
>
> > Hello
> >
> > To me it would be good to know if any of these issues are valid
> > if you use 2.6 kernel and patch from sarge?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > // Ola
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 07:00:27PM +0800, Andrew Lee wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Dear Micah,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your tests, I have downloaded the testfs-0.11.sh and did
> >> the similar tests as yours to help confirm the results.
> >>
> >> > Test #1
> >> > Using all debian sarge componants:
> >> > kernel-source: 2.4.27-10 (debian sarge)
> >> > util-vserver: 0.30-204-5sarge2 (debian sarge)
> >> > kernel-patch: 1.9.5.3 (debian sarge)
> >> >
> >> > 103, 104, 106, 109, 121, 122 all fail on ext2, not 114 or 124 as your
> >> > tests show.
> >> >
> >> > Conclusion: either the fixes to testfs caused error 114 and 124 to go
> >> > away, or you have a different kernel-source or kernel-patch applied.
> >> > Either try again with testfs.sh-0.11 or install the latest sarge
> >> kernel
> >> > source and kernel-patch-vserver as those versions are all that matter
> >> here.
> >>
> >> I am using all deian sarge componats, all the same version as yours,
> >> and then did the testfs.sh-0.11 by this way(I've setup a loopback file
> >> on /dev/loop0 already), before start the testfs.sh-0.11, I confirmed the
> >> barrier has proper setup(I also did this in my other tests later):
> >> # ls -lda /var/lib/vservers
> >> d--------- 8 root root 4096 Oct 13 15:37 /var/lib/vservers/
> >> # showattr -d /var/lib/vservers/
> >> - ---BU-- /var/lib/vservers/
> >> # lsattr -d /var/lib/vservers
> >> - ---------------t- /var/lib/vservers
> >>
> >> # ./testfs.sh-0.11 -l -t -D /dev/loop0 -M /mnt
> >> Linux-VServer FS Test [V0.10] Copyright (C) 2005 H.Poetzl
> >> Linux 2.4.27-10vserver-confirm i686/0.30.204
> >> VCI: <none> (unknown)
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext2 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext3 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> Same fails as you got, and I guess Bertl forgot to change the version in
> >> the script, so the script is still showing [V0.10].
> >>
> >> I also tested the exploit:
> >>
> >> # ./rootesc
> >> Exploit seems to work. =)
> >> #
> >> And then I can be able to access the host, for example, I can see the
> >> vserver's config file on host:
> >> # ls -ald /etc/vservers /var/lib/vservers/
> >> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Sep 22 14:10 /etc/vservers
> >> d--------- 8 root root 4096 Oct 13 15:37 /var/lib/vservers/
> >>
> >> > Test #2
> >> > Using only debian sarge util-vserver:
> >> > kernel-source: 2.4.31 (upstream)
> >> > util-vserver: 0.30-204-5sarge2 (debian sarge)
> >> > kernel-patch: 1.2.10 (upstream)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 103, 104, 106, 109, 121, 122 all fail on ext2, the same as failed
> >> using
> >> > all debian sarge componants in test #1.
> >> >
> >> > Conclusion: based on the results from this test, and the previous, it
> >> is
> >> > clear that the debian kernel source and the debian kernel patch dont
> >> > make a difference here
> >>
> >> Same here, I am using the vanilla kernel 2.4.31(from kernel.org)
> >> vserver patch 1.2.10 (upstream)
> >> util-vserver: 0.30-204-5sarge2 (debian sarge)
> >>
> >> ./testfs.sh-0.11 -l -t -D /dev/loop0 -M /mnt
> >> Linux-VServer FS Test [V0.10] Copyright (C) 2005 H.Poetzl
> >> Linux 2.4.31-vs1.2.10 i686/0.30.204
> >> VCI: <none> (unknown)
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext2 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext3 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> Same result as you got, seems the testfs #1 and #2 shows no difference,
> >> but the exploit works on #1's setup, not on #2.
> >>
> >> # ./rootesc
> >> cd ..: Permission denied
> >> chmod: Operation not permitted
> >> cd ..: Permission denied
> >> chmod: Operation not permitted
> >> (alternating a few times)
> >> then the false:
> >> Exploit seems to work. =)
> >> (because it always shows this line, actually it failed, but nobody
> >> bothered to fix up the exploit bug)
> >>
> >> > Test #3
> >> > Using debian sarge componants with upstream util-vserver:
> >> > kernel-source: 2.4.27-10 (debian sarge)
> >> > util-vserver: 0.30-208+fix03 (upstream)
> >> > kernel-patch: 1.9.5.3 (debian sarge)
> >> >
> >> > Only test 106 fails... Not 104, 114, 122 or 124.
> >> >
> >> > Conclusion: either the fixes to testfs caused 104, 114, 122, 124 to go
> >> > away or you have a different kernel-source or kernel-patch applied,
> >> try
> >> > with testfs.sh-0.11 to see, or just try with a current sarge kernel
> >> and
> >> > patch since that is all that matters here.
> >>
> >> In your test #3, you used the 0.30-208+fix03 from upstream, and I am
> >> using the one from sid, let's see any difference:
> >> I upgrade the util-vserver from sid on sarge(libc6 libc6-dev locales are
> >> also to be upgraded). These are the messages I got:
> >> Setting up util-vserver (0.30.208-3) ...
> >> Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/rebootmgr ...
> >> Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/vprocunhide ...
> >> Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/vservers-legacy ...
> >> /var/lib/vservers: Operation not permitted
> >>
> >> For the error message, I don't know what is wrong in postinst script,
> >> but after I looked at the script, I found:
> >> - ---
> >> # Remove older attr +t if present
> >> if [ "`lsattr -d /var/lib/vservers/|cut -c16`" = "t" ] ; then
> >> chattr -t /var/lib/vservers
> >> fi
> >>
> >> # set chroot barrier
> >> setattr --barrier /var/lib/vservers || true
> >> - ---
> >> I think this is wrong, let me quote what Bertl explained to me:
> >> <quote>
> >> 19:53 < Bertl> (on 2.4 it is important that you verify the following)
> >> 19:54 < Bertl> the directory permissions _are_ 000, the barrier 'B' and
> >> iunlink'U' is reported, the 't' flag shows up
> >> 19:54 < Bertl> ('U' and 't' are connected on 2.4)
> >> </quote>
> >> I will file another bug to util-vserver later.
> >>
> >> Let me go back to do the test #3:
> >> kernel-source: 2.4.27-10 (debian sarge)
> >> util-vserver: 0.30-208-3 (debian sid)
> >> kernel-patch: 1.9.5.3 (debian sarge)
> >> # ./testfs.sh-0.11 -l -t -D /dev/loop0 -M /mnt
> >> Linux-VServer FS Test [V0.10] Copyright (C) 2005 H.Poetzl
> >> Linux 2.4.27-10vserver-confirm i686/0.30.208
> >> VCI: <none> (unknown)
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext2 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]. [106]* [108]. [109].
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]. [122]. [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext3 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]. [106]* [108]. [109].
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]. [122]. [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> Same as yours, only test 106 fails. And the exploit works here still:
> >> # ./rootesc
> >> Exploit seems to work. =)
> >> # ls -lad /etc/vservers /var/lib/vservers/
> >> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Sep 22 14:10 /etc/vservers
> >> d--------- 8 root root 4096 Oct 13 15:37 /var/lib/vservers/
> >>
> >>
> >> > Test #4
> >> > Using all upstream componants:
> >> > kernel-source: 2.4.31 (upstream)
> >> > util-vserver: 0.30-208+fix03 (upstream)
> >> > kernel-patch: 1.2.10 (upstream)
> >> >
> >> > Only test 106 fails, same as the previous test, when we use the debian
> >> > sarge kernel-source and kernel-patch.
> >> >
> >> > Conclusion: Based on the results of this test, and the previous, it is
> >> > clear that the debian sarge kernel source and debian sarge kernel
> >> patch
> >> > don't make a difference here either, the problem has been isolated to
> >> > util-vserver 0.30-204-5sarge2 in sarge. If this is actually a problem,
> >> I
> >> > do not know, this definatetly needs to be determined. Additionally,
> >> test
> >> > 106 could be in error, this should also be checked.
> >>
> >> In my test, I am still using the util-vserver from sid:
> >> kernel-source: 2.4.31 (upstream)
> >> util-vserver: 0.30-208-3 (Debian sid)
> >> kernel-patch: 1.2.10 (upstream)
> >>
> >> ./testfs.sh-0.11 -l -t -D /dev/loop0 -M /mnt
> >> Linux-VServer FS Test [V0.10] Copyright (C) 2005 H.Poetzl
> >> Linux 2.4.31-vs1.2.10 i686/0.30.208
> >> VCI: <none> (unknown)
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext2 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]. [106]* [108]. [109].
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]. [122]. [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> - ---
> >> testing ext3 filesystem ...
> >> [000]. xattr related tests ...
> >> [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]. [106]* [108]. [109].
> >> [112]. [113]. [114]. [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
> >> [121]. [122]. [123]. [124]. [199].
> >>
> >> Same as you got, only fails on 106.
> >> And exploit doesn't work:
> >> # ./rootesc
> >> cd ..: Permission denied
> >> chmod: Operation not permitted
> >> cd ..: Permission denied
> >> chmod: Operation not permitted
> >> (alternating a few times)
> >> then the false:
> >> Exploit seems to work. =)
> >>
> >> > The above tests are only done with ext2, I am not sure why you didn't
> >> do
> >> > the xfs, reiserfs and jfs tests, but there is no need, as I have done
> >> them:
> >> >
> >> > Conclusion: using *all* upstream pieces, the same failures occur when
> >> > using debian kernel source and kernel patch. This leads me to believe
> >> > that either the upstream kernel source is broken, the upstream linux
> >> > vserver patch is broken, or most likely the testfs is not working
> >> > properly for these tests.
> >>
> >> I do not know, the different I found is the exploit works only in
> >> 2.4.27-10 with kernel-patch-vserver 1.9.5.3 (debian sarge), but not with
> >> vanilla kernel with upstream patch.
> >>
> >> I didn't test reiserfs, xfs and jfs, cause I knew some futures only
> >> implemented on ext2/3(eg:disklimit), so I only focus my tests on ext2/3.
> >>
> >> Let me know if you need more tests on my side for investigate this
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for investigating this issue.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> - -Andrew
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >> iD8DBQFDTj5HnQYz4bYlCYURAlo+AJ0TAmp0+59cHvSWE84dteBb3FMYQACfY3oB
> >> btznLu/i+MP6KlLdGCLzlxY=
> >> =SK9G
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
> > / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \
> > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> > | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> > | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
> > \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
--- Ola Lundqvist systemkonsult --- M Sc in IT Engineering ----
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
