From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Aleksa Sarai" <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
"Christian Heimes" <christian@python.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Deven Bowers" <deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com>,
"Eric Chiang" <ericchiang@google.com>,
"Florian Weimer" <fweimer@redhat.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>, "Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
"Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Lakshmi Ramasubramanian" <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@google.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mickael.salaun@ssi.gouv.fr>,
"Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
"Philippe Trébuchet" <philippe.trebuchet@ssi.gouv.fr>,
"Scott Shell" <scottsh@microsoft.com>,
"Sean Christopherson" <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Steve Dower" <steve.dower@python.org>,
"Steve Grubb" <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
"Thibaut Sautereau" <thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
"Vincent Strubel" <vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
"LSM List" <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux FS Devel" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] fs: Enable to enforce noexec mounts or file exec through O_MAYEXEC
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 16:27:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202005131525.D08BFB3@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEjxPJ7y2G5hW0WTH0rSrDZrorzcJ7nrQBjfps2OWV5t1BUYHw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:33 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > Enable to forbid access to files open with O_MAYEXEC. Thanks to the
> > noexec option from the underlying VFS mount, or to the file execute
> > permission, userspace can enforce these execution policies. This may
> > allow script interpreters to check execution permission before reading
> > commands from a file, or dynamic linkers to allow shared object loading.
> >
> > Add a new sysctl fs.open_mayexec_enforce to enable system administrators
> > to enforce two complementary security policies according to the
> > installed system: enforce the noexec mount option, and enforce
> > executable file permission. Indeed, because of compatibility with
> > installed systems, only system administrators are able to check that
> > this new enforcement is in line with the system mount points and file
> > permissions. A following patch adds documentation.
> >
> > For tailored Linux distributions, it is possible to enforce such
> > restriction at build time thanks to the CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_STATIC option.
> > The policy can then be configured with CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT and
> > CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE.
> >
> > Being able to restrict execution also enables to protect the kernel by
> > restricting arbitrary syscalls that an attacker could perform with a
> > crafted binary or certain script languages. It also improves multilevel
> > isolation by reducing the ability of an attacker to use side channels
> > with specific code. These restrictions can natively be enforced for ELF
> > binaries (with the noexec mount option) but require this kernel
> > extension to properly handle scripts (e.g., Python, Perl). To get a
> > consistent execution policy, additional memory restrictions should also
> > be enforced (e.g. thanks to SELinux).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> > Reviewed-by: Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr>
> > Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > index 33b6d372e74a..70f179f6bc6c 100644
> > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > @@ -411,10 +412,90 @@ static int sb_permission(struct super_block *sb, struct inode *inode, int mask)
> <snip>
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SYSCTL) && !defined(CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_STATIC)
> > +int proc_omayexec(struct ctl_table *table, int write, void __user *buffer,
> > + size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> > +{
> > + int error;
> > +
> > + if (write) {
> > + struct ctl_table table_copy;
> > + int tmp_mayexec_enforce;
> > +
> > + if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN))
> > + return -EPERM;
>
> Not fond of using CAP_MAC_ADMIN here (or elsewhere outside of security
> modules). The ability to set this sysctl is not equivalent to being
> able to load a MAC policy, set arbitrary MAC labels on
> processes/files, etc.
That's fair. In that case, perhaps this could just use the existing
_sysadmin helper? (Though I should note that these perm checks actually
need to be in the open, not the read/write ... I thought there was a
series to fix that, but I can't find it now. Regardless, that's
orthogonal to this series.)
> > + * omayexec_inode_permission - Check O_MAYEXEC before accessing an inode
> > + *
> > + * @inode: Inode to check permission on
> > + * @mask: Right to check for (%MAY_OPENEXEC, %MAY_EXECMOUNT, %MAY_EXEC)
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 if access is permitted, -EACCES otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static inline int omayexec_inode_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> > +{
> > + if (!(mask & MAY_OPENEXEC))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if ((sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT) &&
> > + !(mask & MAY_EXECMOUNT))
> > + return -EACCES;
> > +
> > + if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE)
> > + return generic_permission(inode, MAY_EXEC);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> I'm wondering if this is being done at the wrong level. I would think
> that OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE would mean to check file execute permission
> with respect to all mechanisms/policies, including DAC,
> filesystem-specific checking (inode->i_op->permission), security
> modules, etc. That requires more than just calling
> generic_permission() with MAY_EXEC, which only covers the default
> DAC/ACL logic; you'd need to take the handling up a level to
> inode_permission() and re-map MAY_OPENEXEC to MAY_EXEC for
> do_inode_permission() and security_inode_permission() at least.
Oh, yeah, that's a good point. Does this need to be a two-pass check, or
can MAY_OPENEXEC get expanded to MAY_EXEC here? Actually, why is this so
deep at all? Shouldn't this be in may_open()?
Like, couldn't just the entire thing just be:
diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index a320371899cf..0ab18e19f5da 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -2849,6 +2849,13 @@ static int may_open(const struct path *path, int acc_mode, int flag)
break;
}
+ if (unlikely(mask & MAY_OPENEXEC)) {
+ if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT &&
+ path_noexec(path))
+ return -EACCES;
+ if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE)
+ acc_mode |= MAY_EXEC;
+ }
error = inode_permission(inode, MAY_OPEN | acc_mode);
if (error)
return error;
> Alternatively, we can modify each individual filesystem (that
> implements its own i_op->permission) and security module to start
> handling MAY_OPENEXEC and have them choose to remap it to a file
> execute check (or not) independent of the sysctl. Not sure of your
Eek, no, this should be centralized in the VFS, not per-filesystem, but
I do see that it might be possible for a filesystem to actually do the
MAY_OPENEXEC test internally, so the two-pass check wouldn't be needed.
But... I think that can't happen until _everything_ can do the single
pass check, so we always have to make the second call too.
> intent. As it stands, selinux_inode_permission() will ignore the new
> MAY_OPENEXEC flag until someone updates it. Likewise for Smack.
> AppArmor/TOMOYO would probably need to check and handle FMODE_EXEC in
> their file_open hooks since they don't implement inode_permission().
Is there any need to teach anything about MAY_OPENEXEC? It'll show up
for the LSMs as (MAY_OPEN | MAY_EXEC).
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-13 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-05 15:31 [PATCH v5 0/6] Add support for O_MAYEXEC Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] fs: Add support for an O_MAYEXEC flag on openat2(2) Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-12 21:05 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-12 21:40 ` Christian Heimes
2020-05-12 22:56 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-13 10:13 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] fs: Add a MAY_EXECMOUNT flag to infer the noexec mount property Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-12 21:09 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-14 8:14 ` Lev R. Oshvang .
2020-05-14 15:48 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-17 16:57 ` Lev R. Oshvang .
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] fs: Enable to enforce noexec mounts or file exec through O_MAYEXEC Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:44 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-05-05 16:55 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 17:40 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-05-12 21:48 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-13 11:09 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-13 15:37 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-05-13 23:27 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2020-05-14 3:05 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-14 10:12 ` David Laight
2020-05-14 12:22 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-05-14 14:41 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-14 15:52 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-05-14 15:45 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-14 16:10 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-05-14 19:16 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-15 0:58 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-15 8:01 ` How about just O_EXEC? (was Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] fs: Enable to enforce noexec mounts or file exec through O_MAYEXEC) Kees Cook
2020-05-15 8:43 ` Florian Weimer
2020-05-15 14:37 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-15 14:43 ` Florian Weimer
2020-05-15 15:50 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-18 7:26 ` Florian Weimer
2020-05-19 2:23 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-05-19 10:13 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-15 11:04 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-15 15:46 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-15 18:24 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-14 19:21 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] fs: Enable to enforce noexec mounts or file exec through O_MAYEXEC Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] selftest/openat2: Add tests for O_MAYEXEC enforcing Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-12 21:57 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-13 11:18 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] doc: Add documentation for the fs.open_mayexec_enforce sysctl Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-12 22:00 ` Kees Cook
2020-05-13 11:20 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:31 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] ima: add policy support for the new file open MAY_OPENEXEC flag Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-05 15:36 ` [PATCH v5 0/6] Add support for O_MAYEXEC Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-06 13:58 ` Lev R. Oshvang .
2020-05-06 15:41 ` Aleksa Sarai
2020-05-07 8:30 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-07 8:05 ` David Laight
2020-05-07 8:36 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-07 9:00 ` David Laight
2020-05-07 9:30 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-07 9:44 ` David Laight
2020-05-07 13:38 ` Mickaël Salaün
2020-05-08 7:15 ` Lev R. Oshvang .
2020-05-08 14:01 ` Mimi Zohar
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=202005131525.D08BFB3@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=christian@python.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=ericchiang@google.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=mickael.salaun@ssi.gouv.fr \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=philippe.trebuchet@ssi.gouv.fr \
--cc=scottsh@microsoft.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
--cc=steve.dower@python.org \
--cc=thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr \
--cc=vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).