From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
raven@themaw.net, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #2]
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:05:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWFBA8H0RiZPikLtEi8xg-cqJLtQgnU2CGTuwByrHN7Dw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50c2ea19-6ae8-1f42-97ef-ba5c95e40475@schaufler-ca.com>
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:31 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> n 6/4/2019 10:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:35 AM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Al,
> >>
> >> Here's a set of patches to add a general variable-length notification queue
> >> concept and to add sources of events for:
> > I asked before and didn't see a response, so I'll ask again. Why are
> > you paying any attention at all to the creds that generate an event?
> > It seems like the resulting security model will be vary hard to
> > understand and probably buggy. Can't you define a sensible model in
> > which only the listener creds matter?
>
> We've spent the last 18 months reeling from the implications
> of what can happen when one process has the ability to snoop
> on another. Introducing yet another mechanism that is trivial
> to exploit is a very bad idea.
If you're talking about Spectre, etc, this is IMO entirely irrelevant.
Among other things, setting these watches can and should require some
degree of privilege.
>
> I will try to explain the problem once again. If process A
> sends a signal (writes information) to process B the kernel
> checks that either process A has the same UID as process B
> or that process A has privilege to override that policy.
> Process B is passive in this access control decision, while
> process A is active.
Are you stating what you see to be a requirement?
> Process A must have write access
> (defined by some policy) to process B's event buffer.
No, stop right here. Process B is monitoring some aspect of the
system. Process A is doing something. Process B should need
permission to monitor whatever it's monitoring, and process A should
have permission to do whatever it's doing. I don't think it makes
sense to try to ascribe an identity to the actor doing some action to
decide to omit it from the watch -- this has all kinds of correctness
issues.
If you're writing a policy and you don't like letting process B spy on
processes doing various things, then disallow that type of spying.
> To
> implement such a policy requires A's credential,
You may not design a new mechanism that looks at the credential in a
context where looking at a credential is invalid unless you have some
very strong justification for why all of the known reasons that it's a
bad idea don't apply to what you're doing.
So, without a much stronger justification, NAK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-04 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-04 16:34 [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #2] David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 1/8] security: Override creds in __fput() with last fputter's creds " David Howells
2019-06-04 18:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 2/8] General notification queue with user mmap()'able ring buffer " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 3/8] keys: Add a notification facility " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 4/8] vfs: Add a mount-notification " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:35 ` [PATCH 5/8] vfs: Add superblock notifications " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 6/8] fsinfo: Export superblock notification counter " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 7/8] block: Add block layer notifications " David Howells
2019-06-04 16:36 ` [PATCH 8/8] Add sample notification program " David Howells
2019-06-04 17:43 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications " Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-04 20:31 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-04 21:05 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2019-06-04 22:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 8:41 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 14:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 16:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 17:01 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 17:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 18:12 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 18:25 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 19:28 ` Greg KH
2019-06-05 21:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-05 16:56 ` Rational model for UID based controls David Howells
2019-06-05 17:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 21:06 ` David Howells
2019-06-05 17:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications [ver #2] David Howells
2019-06-04 20:39 ` David Howells
2019-06-04 20:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
[not found] ` <CAB9W1A0AgMYOwGx9c-TmAt=1O6Bjsr2P3Nhd=2+QV39dgw0CrA@mail.gmail.com>
2019-06-05 4:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-05 13:47 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-04 21:11 ` Casey Schaufler
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=CALCETrWFBA8H0RiZPikLtEi8xg-cqJLtQgnU2CGTuwByrHN7Dw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).