From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:08:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJCk8p_nkuutM0kPLhwibKEVoA6E=ZqT2r8jVK5H47ORQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181121165409.54278-1-mortonm@chromium.org>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:54 AM <mortonm@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> From: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
>
> SafeSetID gates the setid family of syscalls to restrict UID/GID
> transitions from a given UID/GID to only those approved by a
> system-wide whitelist. These restrictions also prohibit the given
> UIDs/GIDs from obtaining auxiliary privileges associated with
> CAP_SET{U/G}ID, such as allowing a user to set up user namespace UID
> mappings. For now, only gating the set*uid family of syscalls is
> supported, with support for set*gid coming in a future patch set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Sending a patch developed against the 'next-general' branch of the
> linux-security tree, since the previous patch versions wouldn't apply
> cleanly to 'next-general'.
I'm finally getting back around to this. Sorry for the delay!
A few general process notes:
- Please "version" your patches in the Subject (e.g. "[PATCH v3] LSM:
add SafeSetID ..."). This helps track discussion.
- Please include a "changes since last version below the first "---"
line, to summarize what has changed. This makes review faster for
people that have read a specific version but need to catch up (like
me) :)
> +/*
> + * TODO: Figuring out whether the current syscall number (saved on the kernel
> + * stack) is one of the set*uid syscalls is an operation that requires checking
> + * the number against arch-specific constants as seen below. The need for this
> + * LSM to know about arch-specific syscall stuff is not ideal. Is it better to
> + * implement an arch-specific function that gets called from this file and
> + * update arch/Kconfig to mention that the HAVE_SAFESETID symbol should only be
> + * selected for architectures that implement the function? Any other ideas?
> + */
What would Stephen's solution for this problem end up looking like? I
think avoiding the arch-specific-ness would be quite valuable.
I think adding a capability for this isn't the way to go (there is a
very painful history on adding capabilities). This feels much more
like a good mapping to an LSM (it's narrowing a privilege) with a very
specific policy.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-06 0:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-31 15:28 [PATCH] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls mortonm
2018-10-31 21:02 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-10-31 21:57 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-31 22:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-01 1:12 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-01 6:13 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-01 15:39 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-01 15:56 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-01 16:18 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-01 6:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-01 16:11 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-01 16:22 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-01 16:41 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-01 17:08 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-01 19:52 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-02 16:05 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-02 17:12 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-02 18:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-02 18:30 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-02 19:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-02 19:22 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-08 20:53 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-08 21:34 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-09 0:30 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-09 23:21 ` [PATCH] LSM: generalize flag passing to security_capable mortonm
2018-11-21 16:54 ` [PATCH] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls mortonm
2018-12-06 0:08 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2018-12-06 17:51 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-11 17:13 ` [PATCH v2] " mortonm
2019-01-15 0:38 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-15 18:04 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] LSM: mark all set*uid call sites in kernel/sys.c mortonm
2019-01-15 19:34 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-15 18:04 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls mortonm
2019-01-15 19:44 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-15 21:50 ` [PATCH v4 " mortonm
2019-01-15 22:32 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-16 15:46 ` [PATCH v5 " mortonm
2019-01-16 16:10 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-01-22 20:40 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-22 22:28 ` James Morris
2019-01-22 22:40 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-22 22:42 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " mortonm
2019-01-25 15:51 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-25 20:15 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] " James Morris
2019-01-25 21:06 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-28 19:47 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-28 19:56 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-28 20:09 ` James Morris
2019-01-28 20:19 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-28 20:30 ` [PATCH] LSM: Add 'name' field for SafeSetID in DEFINE_LSM mortonm
2019-01-28 22:12 ` James Morris
2019-01-28 22:33 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls Micah Morton
2019-01-29 17:25 ` James Morris
2019-01-29 21:14 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-30 7:15 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-06 19:03 ` [PATCH] LSM: SafeSetID: add selftest mortonm
2019-02-06 19:26 ` Edwin Zimmerman
2019-02-07 21:54 ` Micah Morton
2019-02-12 19:01 ` James Morris
2019-01-15 21:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls Micah Morton
2019-01-15 19:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Micah Morton
2019-01-15 19:53 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-15 4:07 ` James Morris
2019-01-15 19:42 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-02 19:28 ` [PATCH] " Micah Morton
2018-11-06 19:09 ` [PATCH v2] " mortonm
2018-11-06 20:59 ` [PATCH] " James Morris
2018-11-06 21:21 ` [PATCH v3] " mortonm
2018-11-02 18:07 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Smalley
2018-11-02 19:13 ` Micah Morton
2018-11-19 18:54 ` [PATCH] [PATCH] LSM: generalize flag passing to security_capable mortonm
2018-12-13 22:29 ` Micah Morton
2018-12-13 23:09 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-12-14 0:05 ` Micah Morton
2018-12-18 22:37 ` [PATCH v2] " mortonm
2019-01-07 17:55 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-07 18:16 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-01-07 18:36 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-07 18:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-01-07 19:02 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-07 22:57 ` [PATCH v3] " mortonm
2019-01-07 23:13 ` [PATCH v2] " Kees Cook
2019-01-08 0:10 ` [PATCH v4] " mortonm
2019-01-08 0:20 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-09 18:39 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-10 22:31 ` James Morris
2019-01-10 23:03 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-08 0:10 ` [PATCH v2] " Micah Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAGXu5jJCk8p_nkuutM0kPLhwibKEVoA6E=ZqT2r8jVK5H47ORQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mortonm@chromium.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).