Re: HEADS UP: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-07:01.jail

Colin Percival wrote:
Hello Everyone,

I usually let security advisories speak for themselves, but I want to call
special attention to this one: If you use jails, READ THE ADVISORY, in
particular the "NOTE WELL" part below; and if you have problems after applying
the security patch, LET US KNOW -- we do everything we can to make sure
that security updates will never cause problems, but in this case we could
not fix the all of the security issues without either making assumptions
about how systems are configured or reducing functionality.

In the end we opted to reduce functionality (the jail startup process is
no longer logged to /var/log/console.log inside the jail)

Thats a bummer, when Dirk showed me this problem the first time my ideas
for fixing this problem without losing the functionality where changing
flags on the file so it can't be removed or/and checking if it is really
a file or a symlink instead. Of course you have to check if /var/log has
symlinked parent directories before.

First is quite problematic and setting flags on file is something
scripts which create a jail in the first place probably have to bother
with so option two would be my approach. Did I miss a possible problem
with that idea?

(filesystems which are mounted via per-jail
fstab files should not be mounted on symlinks -- if you do this, adjust your
fstab files to give the real, non-symlinked, path to the mount point), and

If I understand the patch correct it checks recursive all parent
directories of a mountpoint in is_symlinked_mountpoint(), wouldn't it be
better to just check for a symlinked parent directory up to and not
including ${_rootdir}? I think that wouldn't weaken security and people
would be allowed to use symlinks for their jail root-directories and
above. I already know some setups which will break with the current patch.

leave a potential security problem unfixed (if you mount any filesystems via
per-jail fstab files on mount points which are visible within multiple jails,
there are problems -- don't do this).

I'm not sure I understand that quite correct, where is this problem

Other things:

tail is used in line 230: tail -r ${_fstab} | while read _device
_mountpt _rest; do

If the per-jail fstab is larger than 10 lines, which is the default of
tail to show, the remaining mountpoints will not be unmounted?

Anyway thanks to the freebsd team.


freebsd-security@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages