From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v4. Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:03:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20090512180339.GG6896@mail.oracle.com> References: <20090507221535.GA31624@mail.oracle.com> <4A039FF8.7090807@hp.com> <20090508031018.GB8611@mail.oracle.com> <20090511204011.GB30293@mail.oracle.com> <20090511223414.GA28209@mail.oracle.com> <1242130714.31807.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090512172200.GC6896@mail.oracle.com> <1242149567.31807.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Morris , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, jim owens , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: Stephen Smalley Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1242149567.31807.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ocfs2-devel-bounces@oss.oracle.com Errors-To: ocfs2-devel-bounces@oss.oracle.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:22 -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:18:34AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > Is preserve_security supposed to also control the preservation of the > > > SELinux security attribute (security.selinux extended attribute)? I'd > > > expect that either we preserve all the security-relevant attributes or > > > none of them. And if that is the case, then SELinux has to know about > > > preserve_security in order to know what the security context of the new > > > inode will be. > > > > Thank you Stephen, you read my mind. In the ocfs2 case, we're > > expecting to just reflink the extended attribute structures verbatim in > > the preserve_security case. > > And in the preserve_security==0 case, you'll be calling > security_inode_init_security() in order to get the attribute name/value > pair to assign to the new inode just as in the normal file creation > case? Oh, absolutely. As an aside, do inodes ever have more than one security.* attribute? It would appear that security_inode_init_security() just returns one attribute, but what if I had a system running under SMACK and then changed to SELinux? Would my (existing) inode then have security.smack and security.selinux attributes? > > > Also, if you are going to automatically degrade reflink(2) behavior > > > based on the owner_or_cap test, then you ought to allow the same to be > > > true if the security module vetoes the attempt to preserve attributes. > > > Either DAC or MAC logic may say that security attributes cannot be > > > preserved. Your current logic will only allow graceful degradation in > > > the DAC case, but the MAC case will remain a hard failure. > > > > I did not think of this, and its a very good point as well. I'm > > not sure how to have the return value of security_inode_reflink() > > distinguish between "disallow the reflink" and "disallow > > preserve_security". But since !preserve_security requires read access > > only, perhaps we move security_inode_reflink up higher and say: > > > > error = security_inode_reflink(old_dentry, dir); > > if (error) > > preserve_security = 0; > > > > Here security_inode_reflink() does not need new_dentry, because it isn't > > setting a security context. If it's ok with the reflink, we'll be > > copying the extended attribute. If it's not OK, it falls through to the > > inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ) check, which will check for plain old > > read access. > > What do we think? > > I'd rather have two hooks, one to allow the security module to override > preserve_security and one to allow the security module to deny the > operation altogether. The former hook only needs to be called if > preserve_security is not already cleared by the DAC logic. The latter > hook needs to know the final verdict on preserve_security in order to > determine the right set of checks to apply, which isn't necessarily > limited to only checking read access. Ok, is that two hooks or one hook with specific error returns? I don't care, it's up to the LSM group. I just can't come up with a good distinguishing set of names if its two hooks :-) Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #157 "Take time to smell the roses." Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:03:39 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v4. In-Reply-To: <1242149567.31807.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090507221535.GA31624@mail.oracle.com> <4A039FF8.7090807@hp.com> <20090508031018.GB8611@mail.oracle.com> <20090511204011.GB30293@mail.oracle.com> <20090511223414.GA28209@mail.oracle.com> <1242130714.31807.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090512172200.GC6896@mail.oracle.com> <1242149567.31807.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090512180339.GG6896@mail.oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Smalley Cc: James Morris , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, jim owens , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:22 -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:18:34AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > Is preserve_security supposed to also control the preservation of the > > > SELinux security attribute (security.selinux extended attribute)? I'd > > > expect that either we preserve all the security-relevant attributes or > > > none of them. And if that is the case, then SELinux has to know about > > > preserve_security in order to know what the security context of the new > > > inode will be. > > > > Thank you Stephen, you read my mind. In the ocfs2 case, we're > > expecting to just reflink the extended attribute structures verbatim in > > the preserve_security case. > > And in the preserve_security==0 case, you'll be calling > security_inode_init_security() in order to get the attribute name/value > pair to assign to the new inode just as in the normal file creation > case? Oh, absolutely. As an aside, do inodes ever have more than one security.* attribute? It would appear that security_inode_init_security() just returns one attribute, but what if I had a system running under SMACK and then changed to SELinux? Would my (existing) inode then have security.smack and security.selinux attributes? > > > Also, if you are going to automatically degrade reflink(2) behavior > > > based on the owner_or_cap test, then you ought to allow the same to be > > > true if the security module vetoes the attempt to preserve attributes. > > > Either DAC or MAC logic may say that security attributes cannot be > > > preserved. Your current logic will only allow graceful degradation in > > > the DAC case, but the MAC case will remain a hard failure. > > > > I did not think of this, and its a very good point as well. I'm > > not sure how to have the return value of security_inode_reflink() > > distinguish between "disallow the reflink" and "disallow > > preserve_security". But since !preserve_security requires read access > > only, perhaps we move security_inode_reflink up higher and say: > > > > error = security_inode_reflink(old_dentry, dir); > > if (error) > > preserve_security = 0; > > > > Here security_inode_reflink() does not need new_dentry, because it isn't > > setting a security context. If it's ok with the reflink, we'll be > > copying the extended attribute. If it's not OK, it falls through to the > > inode_permission(inode, MAY_READ) check, which will check for plain old > > read access. > > What do we think? > > I'd rather have two hooks, one to allow the security module to override > preserve_security and one to allow the security module to deny the > operation altogether. The former hook only needs to be called if > preserve_security is not already cleared by the DAC logic. The latter > hook needs to know the final verdict on preserve_security in order to > determine the right set of checks to apply, which isn't necessarily > limited to only checking read access. Ok, is that two hooks or one hook with specific error returns? I don't care, it's up to the LSM group. I just can't come up with a good distinguishing set of names if its two hooks :-) Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #157 "Take time to smell the roses." Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127