All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Linux Security Module list 
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
	SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:44:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNtUvrGxT6UMy81WfMsfZsydGN5k-VGFBq8yjDWN5ARAWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o8d9k4ln.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:00 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes:
> > Commit 59438b46471a ("security,lockdown,selinux: implement SELinux
> > lockdown") added an implementation of the locked_down LSM hook to
> > SELinux, with the aim to restrict which domains are allowed to perform
> > operations that would breach lockdown.
> >
> > However, in several places the security_locked_down() hook is called in
> > situations where the current task isn't doing any action that would
> > directly breach lockdown, leading to SELinux checks that are basically
> > bogus.
> >
> > Since in most of these situations converting the callers such that
> > security_locked_down() is called in a context where the current task
> > would be meaningful for SELinux is impossible or very non-trivial (and
> > could lead to TOCTOU issues for the classic Lockdown LSM
> > implementation), fix this by modifying the hook to accept a struct cred
> > pointer as argument, where NULL will be interpreted as a request for a
> > "global", task-independent lockdown decision only. Then modify SELinux
> > to ignore calls with cred == NULL.
> >
> > Since most callers will just want to pass current_cred() as the cred
> > parameter, rename the hook to security_cred_locked_down() and provide
> > the original security_locked_down() function as a simple wrapper around
> > the new hook.
> >
> > The callers migrated to the new hook, passing NULL as cred:
> > 1. arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c
> >      Here the hook seems to be called from non-task context and is only
> >      used for redacting some sensitive values from output sent to
> >      userspace.
>
> It's hard to follow but it actually disables interactive use of xmon
> entirely if lockdown is in confidentiality mode, and disables
> modifications of the kernel in integrity mode.
>
> But that's not really that important, the patch looks fine.
>
> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc)

Thanks, Michael!

James/Paul, is there anything blocking this patch from being merged?
Especially the BPF case is causing real trouble for people and the
only workaround is to broadly allow lockdown::confidentiality in the
policy.

--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Linux Security Module list
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:44:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNtUvrGxT6UMy81WfMsfZsydGN5k-VGFBq8yjDWN5ARAWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o8d9k4ln.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:00 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes:
> > Commit 59438b46471a ("security,lockdown,selinux: implement SELinux
> > lockdown") added an implementation of the locked_down LSM hook to
> > SELinux, with the aim to restrict which domains are allowed to perform
> > operations that would breach lockdown.
> >
> > However, in several places the security_locked_down() hook is called in
> > situations where the current task isn't doing any action that would
> > directly breach lockdown, leading to SELinux checks that are basically
> > bogus.
> >
> > Since in most of these situations converting the callers such that
> > security_locked_down() is called in a context where the current task
> > would be meaningful for SELinux is impossible or very non-trivial (and
> > could lead to TOCTOU issues for the classic Lockdown LSM
> > implementation), fix this by modifying the hook to accept a struct cred
> > pointer as argument, where NULL will be interpreted as a request for a
> > "global", task-independent lockdown decision only. Then modify SELinux
> > to ignore calls with cred == NULL.
> >
> > Since most callers will just want to pass current_cred() as the cred
> > parameter, rename the hook to security_cred_locked_down() and provide
> > the original security_locked_down() function as a simple wrapper around
> > the new hook.
> >
> > The callers migrated to the new hook, passing NULL as cred:
> > 1. arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c
> >      Here the hook seems to be called from non-task context and is only
> >      used for redacting some sensitive values from output sent to
> >      userspace.
>
> It's hard to follow but it actually disables interactive use of xmon
> entirely if lockdown is in confidentiality mode, and disables
> modifications of the kernel in integrity mode.
>
> But that's not really that important, the patch looks fine.
>
> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc)

Thanks, Michael!

James/Paul, is there anything blocking this patch from being merged?
Especially the BPF case is causing real trouble for people and the
only workaround is to broadly allow lockdown::confidentiality in the
policy.

--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-26 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-17  9:20 [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-05-17  9:20 ` [PATCH v2] lockdown, selinux: " Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-05-17 11:00 ` [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: " Michael Ellerman
2021-05-17 11:00   ` Michael Ellerman
2021-05-26 11:44   ` Ondrej Mosnacek [this message]
2021-05-26 11:44     ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-05-27  4:28     ` James Morris
2021-05-27  4:28       ` James Morris
2021-05-27 14:18       ` Paul Moore
2021-05-27 14:18         ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28  1:37 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28  1:37   ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28  7:09   ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28  7:09     ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28  9:53     ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28  9:53       ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28  9:56     ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28  9:56       ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 10:16       ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28 10:16         ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28 11:47       ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28 11:47         ` Jiri Olsa
2021-05-28 11:54         ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 11:54           ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 13:42       ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-05-28 13:42         ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-05-28 14:20         ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 14:20           ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 15:54           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 15:54             ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 15:47     ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 15:47       ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 18:10       ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 18:10         ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-28 22:52         ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 22:52           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-29 18:48         ` Paul Moore
2021-05-29 18:48           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31  8:24           ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-05-31  8:24             ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-01 20:47             ` Paul Moore
2021-06-01 20:47               ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 12:40               ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-02 12:40                 ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-02 15:13                 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 15:13                   ` Paul Moore
2021-06-03 18:52                   ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-03 18:52                     ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-04  4:50                     ` Paul Moore
2021-06-04  4:50                       ` Paul Moore
2021-06-04 18:02                       ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-04 18:02                         ` Daniel Borkmann
2021-06-04 23:34                         ` Paul Moore
2021-06-04 23:34                           ` Paul Moore
2021-06-05  0:08                           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-06-05  0:08                             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-06-05 18:10                             ` Casey Schaufler
2021-06-05 18:10                               ` Casey Schaufler
2021-06-05 18:17                               ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-05 18:17                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06  2:11                                 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-06  2:11                                   ` Paul Moore
2021-06-06  1:30                             ` Paul Moore
2021-06-06  1:30                               ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 13:39   ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-06-02 13:39     ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-06-03 17:46     ` Paul Moore
2021-06-03 17:46       ` Paul Moore
2021-06-08 11:01       ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-06-08 11:01         ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2021-06-09  2:40         ` Paul Moore
2021-06-09  2:40           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 13:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-05-28 13:58   ` Steven Rostedt

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=CAFqZXNtUvrGxT6UMy81WfMsfZsydGN5k-VGFBq8yjDWN5ARAWw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=omosnace@redhat.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.