From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from sonic312-28.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.191.209]:42872
        "EHLO sonic312-28.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726266AbeK0DMk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 26 Nov 2018 22:12:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: set xattrs in initramfs from regular files
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, initramfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com,
        dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com, takondra@cisco.com, kamensky@cisco.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, rob@landley.net,
        james.w.mcmechan@gmail.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20181122154942.18262-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <3d1bfbd7-7d45-4cf1-32d6-7f6985b42393@schaufler-ca.com>
 <1543001453.4298.23.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <6d6f3a60-7c80-4107-6d9b-be3d53cefefc@schaufler-ca.com>
 <1543236710.3902.43.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Message-ID: <9b289ef7-473b-5e39-57c0-11a06ca3be65@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:17:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1543236710.3902.43.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/26/2018 4:51 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 18:07 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 11/23/2018 11:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 11:03 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2018 7:49 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>>>>> Although rootfs (tmpfs) supports xattrs, they are not set due to the
>>>>> limitation of the cpio format. A new format called 'newcx' was proposed to
>>>>> overcome this limitation.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it looks like that adding a new format is not simple: 15 kernel
>>>>> patches; user space tools must support the new format; mistakes made in the
>>>>> past should be avoided; it is unclear whether the kernel should switch from
>>>>> cpio to tar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The aim of this patch is to provide the same functionality without
>>>>> introducing a new format. The value of xattrs is placed in regular files
>>>>> having the same file name as the files xattrs are added to, plus a
>>>>> separator and the xattr name (<filename>.xattr-<xattr name>).
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> '/bin/cat.xattr-security.ima' is the name of a file containing the value of
>>>>> the security.ima xattr to be added to /bin/cat.
>>>>>
>>>>> At kernel initialization time, the kernel iterates over the rootfs
>>>>> filesystem, and if it encounters files with the '.xattr-' separator, it
>>>>> reads the content and adds the xattr to the file without the suffix.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Really, no.
>>>>
>>>> It would be incredibly easy to use this mechanism to break
>>>> into systems.
> Assuming that the initramfs itself was signed, how?

I don't share your faith in signatures.

>>>>> This proposal requires that LSMs and IMA allow the read and setxattr
>>>>> operations. This should not be a concern since: files with xattr values
>>>>> are not parsed by the kernel; user space processes are not yet executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be possible to include all xattrs in the same file, but this
>>>>> increases the risk of the kernel being compromised by parsing the content.
>>>> The kernel mustn't do this.
>>> Mustn't do what?  Store the xattr as separate detached files, 
>>> include all the xattrs in a single or per security/LSM xattr attribute
>>> file(s), or either?
>> Any and all of the above. The proposed behavior is a kludge
>> around making the installation tools work correctly. Sure, it
>> may be easier to change the kernel than to change the utilities.
>> That's doesn't make it right.
> Modifying userspace tools, as Rob Landley pointed out in terms of
> toybox, isn't difficult.  The difficulty has been in reviewing and
> upstreaming the kernel CPIO changes.

No sympathy from me there. And why wouldn't this scheme require
just as much review?

> This patch was posted in order to address the lack of xattr support in
> the initramfs.  Before totally dismissing this or a similar solution,
> is there a safe method for including the xattrs?

The extension to CPIO sounds right to me.

> Would defining an LSM hook here help?  Each LSM would define its own
> method for storing and applying, or restoring, xattr labels.

I'm more concerned about how this could be used with file capabilities
than I am with access control attributes. I don't see how adding a hook
for this special case would help.

> Mimi