From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:46:39 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhS0sy_Y8yx4uiZeJhAf_a94ipt1EbE16BOVv6tXtWkgMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210602172924.GM447005@madcap2.tricolour.ca> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1:29 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2021-05-21 17:49, Paul Moore wrote: > > WARNING - This is a work in progress and should not be merged > > anywhere important. It is almost surely not complete, and while it > > probably compiles it likely hasn't been booted and will do terrible > > things. You have been warned. > > > > This patch adds basic auditing to io_uring operations, regardless of > > their context. This is accomplished by allocating audit_context > > structures for the io-wq worker and io_uring SQPOLL kernel threads > > as well as explicitly auditing the io_uring operations in > > io_issue_sqe(). The io_uring operations are audited using a new > > AUDIT_URINGOP record, an example is shown below: > > > > % <TODO - insert AUDIT_URINGOP record example> > > > > Thanks to Richard Guy Briggs for review and feedback. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > > --- > > fs/io-wq.c | 4 + > > fs/io_uring.c | 11 +++ > > include/linux/audit.h | 17 ++++ > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 > > kernel/audit.h | 2 + > > kernel/auditsc.c | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 6 files changed, 208 insertions(+) ... > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > > index e481ac8a757a..e9941d1ad8fd 100644 > > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > > @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ > > #include <linux/task_work.h> > > #include <linux/pagemap.h> > > #include <linux/io_uring.h> > > +#include <linux/audit.h> > > > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > #include <trace/events/io_uring.h> > > @@ -6105,6 +6106,9 @@ static int io_issue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > > if (req->work.creds && req->work.creds != current_cred()) > > creds = override_creds(req->work.creds); > > > > + if (req->opcode < IORING_OP_LAST) > > + audit_uring_entry(req->opcode); Note well the override_creds() call right above the audit code that is being added, it will be important later in this email. > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > index cc89e9f9a753..729849d41631 100644 > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > @@ -1536,6 +1562,52 @@ static void audit_log_proctitle(void) > > audit_log_end(ab); > > } > > > > +/** > > + * audit_log_uring - generate a AUDIT_URINGOP record > > + * @ctx: the audit context > > + */ > > +static void audit_log_uring(struct audit_context *ctx) > > +{ > > + struct audit_buffer *ab; > > + const struct cred *cred; > > + > > + /* > > + * TODO: What do we log here? I'm tossing in a few things to start the > > + * conversation, but additional thought needs to go into this. > > + */ > > + > > + ab = audit_log_start(ctx, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_URINGOP); > > + if (!ab) > > + return; > > + cred = current_cred(); > > This may need to be req->work.creds. I haven't been following if the > io_uring thread inherited the user task's creds (and below, comm and > exe). Nope, we're good. See the existing code in io_issue_sqe() :) > > + audit_log_format(ab, "uring_op=%d", ctx->uring_op); > > arch is stored below in __audit_uring_entry() and never used in the > AUDIT_CTX_URING case. That assignment can either be dropped or printed > before uring_op similar to the SYSCALL record. Good point, I'll drop the code that records the arch from _entry(); it is really only useful to give the appropriate context if needed for other things in the audit stream, and that isn't the case like it is with syscalls. > There aren't really any arg[0-3] to print. Which is why I didn't print them. > io_uring_register and io_uring_setup() args are better covered by other > records. io_uring_enter() has 6 args and the last two aren't covered by > SYSCALL anyways. ??? I think you are confusing the io_uring ops with syscalls; they are very different things from an audit perspective and the io_uring auditing is not intended to replace syscall records. The io_uring_setup() and io_uring_enter() syscalls will be auditing just as any other syscalls would be using the existing syscall audit code. > > + if (ctx->return_valid != AUDITSC_INVALID) > > + audit_log_format(ab, " success=%s exit=%ld", > > + (ctx->return_valid == AUDITSC_SUCCESS ? > > + "yes" : "no"), > > + ctx->return_code); > > + audit_log_format(ab, > > + " items=%d" > > + " ppid=%d pid=%d auid=%u uid=%u gid=%u" > > + " euid=%u suid=%u fsuid=%u" > > + " egid=%u sgid=%u fsgid=%u", > > + ctx->name_count, > > + task_ppid_nr(current), > > + task_tgid_nr(current), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, audit_get_loginuid(current)), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->uid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->gid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->euid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->suid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->fsuid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->egid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->sgid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->fsgid)); > > The audit session ID is still important, relevant and qualifies auid. > In keeping with the SYSCALL record format, I think we want to keep > ses=audit_get_sessionid(current) in here. This might be another case of syscall/io_uring confusion. An io_uring op doesn't necessarily have an audit session ID or an audit UID in the conventional sense; for example think about SQPOLL works, shared rings, etc. > I'm pretty sure we also want to keep comm= and exe= too, but may have to > reach into req->task to get it. There are two values for comm possible, > one from the original task and second "iou-sqp-<pid>" set at the top of > io_sq_thread(). I think this is more syscall/io_uring confusion. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:46:39 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhS0sy_Y8yx4uiZeJhAf_a94ipt1EbE16BOVv6tXtWkgMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210602172924.GM447005@madcap2.tricolour.ca> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1:29 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2021-05-21 17:49, Paul Moore wrote: > > WARNING - This is a work in progress and should not be merged > > anywhere important. It is almost surely not complete, and while it > > probably compiles it likely hasn't been booted and will do terrible > > things. You have been warned. > > > > This patch adds basic auditing to io_uring operations, regardless of > > their context. This is accomplished by allocating audit_context > > structures for the io-wq worker and io_uring SQPOLL kernel threads > > as well as explicitly auditing the io_uring operations in > > io_issue_sqe(). The io_uring operations are audited using a new > > AUDIT_URINGOP record, an example is shown below: > > > > % <TODO - insert AUDIT_URINGOP record example> > > > > Thanks to Richard Guy Briggs for review and feedback. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > > --- > > fs/io-wq.c | 4 + > > fs/io_uring.c | 11 +++ > > include/linux/audit.h | 17 ++++ > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 > > kernel/audit.h | 2 + > > kernel/auditsc.c | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 6 files changed, 208 insertions(+) ... > > diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c > > index e481ac8a757a..e9941d1ad8fd 100644 > > --- a/fs/io_uring.c > > +++ b/fs/io_uring.c > > @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ > > #include <linux/task_work.h> > > #include <linux/pagemap.h> > > #include <linux/io_uring.h> > > +#include <linux/audit.h> > > > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > #include <trace/events/io_uring.h> > > @@ -6105,6 +6106,9 @@ static int io_issue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) > > if (req->work.creds && req->work.creds != current_cred()) > > creds = override_creds(req->work.creds); > > > > + if (req->opcode < IORING_OP_LAST) > > + audit_uring_entry(req->opcode); Note well the override_creds() call right above the audit code that is being added, it will be important later in this email. > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > index cc89e9f9a753..729849d41631 100644 > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > @@ -1536,6 +1562,52 @@ static void audit_log_proctitle(void) > > audit_log_end(ab); > > } > > > > +/** > > + * audit_log_uring - generate a AUDIT_URINGOP record > > + * @ctx: the audit context > > + */ > > +static void audit_log_uring(struct audit_context *ctx) > > +{ > > + struct audit_buffer *ab; > > + const struct cred *cred; > > + > > + /* > > + * TODO: What do we log here? I'm tossing in a few things to start the > > + * conversation, but additional thought needs to go into this. > > + */ > > + > > + ab = audit_log_start(ctx, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_URINGOP); > > + if (!ab) > > + return; > > + cred = current_cred(); > > This may need to be req->work.creds. I haven't been following if the > io_uring thread inherited the user task's creds (and below, comm and > exe). Nope, we're good. See the existing code in io_issue_sqe() :) > > + audit_log_format(ab, "uring_op=%d", ctx->uring_op); > > arch is stored below in __audit_uring_entry() and never used in the > AUDIT_CTX_URING case. That assignment can either be dropped or printed > before uring_op similar to the SYSCALL record. Good point, I'll drop the code that records the arch from _entry(); it is really only useful to give the appropriate context if needed for other things in the audit stream, and that isn't the case like it is with syscalls. > There aren't really any arg[0-3] to print. Which is why I didn't print them. > io_uring_register and io_uring_setup() args are better covered by other > records. io_uring_enter() has 6 args and the last two aren't covered by > SYSCALL anyways. ??? I think you are confusing the io_uring ops with syscalls; they are very different things from an audit perspective and the io_uring auditing is not intended to replace syscall records. The io_uring_setup() and io_uring_enter() syscalls will be auditing just as any other syscalls would be using the existing syscall audit code. > > + if (ctx->return_valid != AUDITSC_INVALID) > > + audit_log_format(ab, " success=%s exit=%ld", > > + (ctx->return_valid == AUDITSC_SUCCESS ? > > + "yes" : "no"), > > + ctx->return_code); > > + audit_log_format(ab, > > + " items=%d" > > + " ppid=%d pid=%d auid=%u uid=%u gid=%u" > > + " euid=%u suid=%u fsuid=%u" > > + " egid=%u sgid=%u fsgid=%u", > > + ctx->name_count, > > + task_ppid_nr(current), > > + task_tgid_nr(current), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, audit_get_loginuid(current)), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->uid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->gid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->euid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->suid), > > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, cred->fsuid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->egid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->sgid), > > + from_kgid(&init_user_ns, cred->fsgid)); > > The audit session ID is still important, relevant and qualifies auid. > In keeping with the SYSCALL record format, I think we want to keep > ses=audit_get_sessionid(current) in here. This might be another case of syscall/io_uring confusion. An io_uring op doesn't necessarily have an audit session ID or an audit UID in the conventional sense; for example think about SQPOLL works, shared rings, etc. > I'm pretty sure we also want to keep comm= and exe= too, but may have to > reach into req->task to get it. There are two values for comm possible, > one from the original task and second "iou-sqp-<pid>" set at the top of > io_sq_thread(). I think this is more syscall/io_uring confusion. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-02 20:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 144+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-21 21:49 [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:49 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] audit: prepare audit_context for use in calling contexts beyond syscalls Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:49 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: " Paul Moore 2021-05-22 0:22 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: " Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-22 0:22 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-22 2:36 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-22 2:36 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-23 20:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-23 20:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-24 19:59 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-24 19:59 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-25 8:27 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-25 8:27 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-25 14:53 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-25 14:53 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 1:11 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 1:11 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 2:04 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 2:04 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 10:19 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-26 10:19 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-26 14:38 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 14:38 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 15:11 ` Steve Grubb 2021-05-26 15:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: " Steve Grubb 2021-05-26 15:17 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: " Stefan Metzmacher 2021-05-26 15:17 ` Stefan Metzmacher 2021-05-26 15:49 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-26 15:49 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-26 17:22 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:22 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-27 17:27 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-27 17:27 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-26 15:49 ` Victor Stewart 2021-05-26 15:49 ` Victor Stewart 2021-05-26 16:38 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-26 16:38 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-26 17:15 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:15 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:31 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:31 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:54 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 17:54 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 18:01 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 18:01 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 18:44 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 18:44 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 18:57 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-26 18:57 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 19:44 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 19:44 ` Jens Axboe 2021-05-26 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-28 16:02 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-28 16:02 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 8:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-02 8:26 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-02 15:46 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 15:46 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-03 10:39 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-03 10:39 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-02 19:46 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 19:46 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-03 10:51 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-03 10:51 ` Pavel Begunkov 2021-06-03 15:54 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-06-03 15:54 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-06-03 15:54 ` Jens Axboe 2021-06-03 15:54 ` Jens Axboe 2021-06-04 5:04 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-04 5:04 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 18:38 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 18:38 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 17:29 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: " Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 17:29 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 20:46 ` Paul Moore [this message] 2021-06-02 20:46 ` Paul Moore 2021-08-25 1:21 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-08-25 1:21 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-08-25 19:41 ` Paul Moore 2021-08-25 19:41 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] audit: dev/test patch to force io_uring auditing Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] audit: add filtering for io_uring records Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-28 22:35 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-28 22:35 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-30 15:26 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-30 15:26 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-31 13:44 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-31 13:44 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 1:40 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 1:40 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 15:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 15:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-02 17:20 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-02 17:20 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-31 13:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] audit: add filtering for io_uring records, addendum Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-31 13:44 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-31 16:08 ` kernel test robot 2021-05-31 16:08 ` kernel test robot 2021-05-31 16:08 ` kernel test robot 2021-05-31 17:38 ` kernel test robot 2021-05-31 17:38 ` kernel test robot 2021-05-31 17:38 ` kernel test robot 2021-06-07 23:15 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-07 23:15 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-08 12:55 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-08 12:55 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-06-09 2:45 ` Paul Moore 2021-06-09 2:45 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-31 13:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] audit: block PERM fields being used with io_uring filtering Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-31 13:44 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] fs: add anon_inode_getfile_secure() similar to anon_inode_getfd_secure() Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] io_uring: convert io_uring to the secure anon inode interface Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks to io_uring Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 14:48 ` Stefan Metzmacher 2021-05-26 14:48 ` Stefan Metzmacher 2021-05-26 20:45 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 20:45 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] selinux: add support for the io_uring access controls Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] Smack: Brutalist io_uring support with debug Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:50 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-22 0:53 ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Tetsuo Handa 2021-05-22 0:53 ` Tetsuo Handa 2021-05-22 2:06 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-22 2:06 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 15:00 ` Jeff Moyer 2021-05-26 15:00 ` Jeff Moyer 2021-05-26 18:49 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 18:49 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 19:07 ` Jeff Moyer 2021-05-26 19:07 ` Jeff Moyer 2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore
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=CAHC9VhS0sy_Y8yx4uiZeJhAf_a94ipt1EbE16BOVv6tXtWkgMg@mail.gmail.com \ --to=paul@paul-moore.com \ --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \ --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=memxor@gmail.com \ --cc=rgb@redhat.com \ --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \ --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: linkBe 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.