Re: [PATCH v2] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks for the new uring_cmd file op

From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	joshi.k@samsung.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, a.manzanares@samsung.com,
	javier@javigon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks for the new uring_cmd file op
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:52:01 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRzjLFg9B4wL7GvW3WY-qM4BoqqcpyS0gW8MUbQ9BD2mg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e139a585-ece7-7813-7c90-9ffc3a924a87@schaufler-ca.com>

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 1:12 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 8:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:52 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:28 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>> On 7/15/22 1:16 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >>>> io-uring cmd support was added through ee692a21e9bf ("fs,io_uring:
> >>>> add infrastructure for uring-cmd"), this extended the struct
> >>>> file_operations to allow a new command which each subsystem can use
> >>>> to enable command passthrough. Add an LSM specific for the command
> >>>> passthrough which enables LSMs to inspect the command details.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was discussed long ago without no clear pointer for something
> >>>> conclusive, so this enables LSMs to at least reject this new file
> >>>> operation.
> >>> From an io_uring perspective, this looks fine to me. It may be easier if
> >>> I take this through my tree due to the moving of the files, or the
> >>> security side can do it but it'd have to then wait for merge window (and
> >>> post io_uring branch merge) to do so. Just let me know. If done outside
> >>> of my tree, feel free to add:
> > I forgot to add this earlier ... let's see how the timing goes, I
> > don't expect the LSM/Smack/SELinux bits to be ready and tested before
> > the merge window opens so I'm guessing this will not be an issue in
> > practice, but thanks for the heads-up.
>
> I have a patch that may or may not be appropriate. I ran the
> liburing tests without (additional) failures, but it looks like
> there isn't anything there testing uring_cmd. Do you have a
> test tucked away somewhere I can use?

All I have at the moment is the audit-testsuite io_uring test (link
below) which is lacking a test for the io_uring CMD command.  I plan
on adding that, but I haven't finished the SELinux patch yet.

* https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/tree/main/tests/io_uring

(Side note: there will be a SELinux io_uring test similar to the
audit-testsuite test, but that effort was delayed due to lack of
io_uring support in the Fedora policy for a while; it's working now,
but the SELinux/SCTP issues have been stealing my time lately.)

-- 
paul-moore.com