From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D31C433F5 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240030AbhLBQBk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:01:40 -0500 Received: from sonic306-27.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.189.89]:33020 "EHLO sonic306-27.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1347621AbhLBQBk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:01:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1638460697; bh=nlCAWenUzyZHS9v5schkQlPVcQORjza3kU4gz0S1uxY=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=uV6rE7vaIKuo4+MECwaFSHeIr+jEW9NKgeBAkoRgW7yjZz7t0ECqDkRBdH2Y/ckT4FPMcFdDfricn44tbSrW7WlpdTcgToSVM9tU/ECe0uPQud4eX7ktV77BlF3wuTUx67cx6VlLGWkuDnlAWlxI0l8zDYKW25lu5AieEAsEkp6amvmDqgtRxIDGeHqZjr92NSs5UTTbNeIT9uSS9T55HG/43NmEL+IM1LhDU+CC9XFacvCxpeQjwpijWQ/+Wq0X/WcEJPXUCHBkGivoHrfUVvxY0Vggr5g4RpbdvM9SdMTlUB0zxwjC0YeSPTdf29CbfstjmMY3jQk8qJotsoVseg== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1638460697; bh=SgwL7EEAdOYCW0unUvfgOKXPtToCFHEob10+bBvuepd=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:Subject:To:From:From:Subject; b=C/WXOOgCcbu2YdnFa938oPyjI9ZETvd2GG/82o+Pnn/ewpjE552sEzcx13Ee+FI+AoG7ppKzI0yBdTESVQGAUTkp649qN1/NvSwFv4ckiGoWSkOmuTNvMOj3bqdrGbJ+kb6sEmuS1zkDh4CbuwkPY0ThRKWwnY6pPOo3Ovk/mhCL3XHWVmWJ8YUkQmlR72pxXawCmJOWVVLHjEQvvc943HBNm/Yrm48u9dMmOQL4xqEaK/1P35PHWgRiAlAkO5JiQqJTrAGZhOXJ8CPhj/aswvZSND+6Km/pMWc3GRjwX5mx6GizdbiMZnpNaKc59ZlEwioVnJ9hFhtC0ae5XkRYGQ== X-YMail-OSG: cFZM2EkVM1mnmh_OY6rFAY.ec1NEk_hmSJLcMeMZ8tkQ1S7RkcXXGJgBqJgz5uV L5C.UpC4RqZYiID3SSBDvRayvAM1ASPBSOi4K9iePIlK1_ZW68tPWAwqKDoqMVnCo8l2T3V1xfEB OY2kFgLLIzDXe2n9UyzkTvM1BGaPi8bb9ywScEARmYfPXSv2jOmE3yNtZdFI0CxEwX._kaXOMlq2 PsxQmn_3uWZnTTeF7fgvA.Ibeb5aBtah24opQFJAAkXalXj6P.myoiNSgarnx2dteqch2K7Y4j9p iocbNsBjyzewob1BuivDkFNRmVjj4jo_ssdW_LLMN6easOmWM6iTwBajhtm_N9QTnFM.cNx.PRHi 52tSkmoKK8fuJEiJpdWN.26CTsN_7qFc2r7aCpUxF5iFnol8dQmSOg0ZdiSNpD82eJVCGD.UJvbo 2DZVtnCKWEykqtdCLN2iZD6GotvMUrc_vX5LFL.GlmaECCUW9iMXUwE7fRmBjUm0hBuwwS9e.tkT sUfeubH1yuHMu_vaHNKze3n5XHsFT0PmxwVPvv32aSjco.1YKs46mFfvK8ryXDHipP4psrEhyqad bt4KMYpOSuW.JWzdFnPDSK8KNNGNxA_NrM3ZVmnzwvpmlxDB7Tyzuc8o1gjldAX9Q3tZgapvhkBI GaKWglEvG9H6suwJ1.gt5r1Exzic7S9_JnNGQgwqUJ.tPK.snjRqkowN9AUr6PWgVFv1bMQy9ltt Z_Hxp622zQ7a79i33_64tB0m7C9ldEMGJ_iiPZ9dWZapDleoXC7dh6qTBISfJ1lRZH.CS8v5ulJ6 KvRsFs_zje_90g7gZg00b05c4NA73cM1wwhnwRgHFZhPT1AImNqAGFWHsZ4I13qRK9sZvIGbV_Hp V45Pfu3QykmC5ptj6YABckMuVyMkpXiqW4pg7Ucxi_SFRAGlrkhKKxv.qCXPCupN7EHkNvzxiNDP f7sa0RShTb1kotXHAuE4TLy5nUTvq2SBofjJ9DH9t2g4E.7Ff5XmvGXaM8jdvhQQOqU9CpZR2Hk9 _5aiZBJOFKGj.Pd3Zd8.V1eq.qPAvZfNlEy6Fp3R7T4pGPn0pKFVeFDRiPBzarKm5s8MKLQKJWeV J7_C_cWG8a5g_8vMa.Y0V02sQQzlWYWTgCSEaDIeehFCvMg6AoTBu8hsT2._nDLLE1H_k0JGcOSN I5UIM3_Z1rR28AOc2x34Nhfik3QxpPNfX6R9dw8cS_xYi5LlvppgR6YjVho3kmmNcbytv0b440Lk AbeeY0NxX09W3LSLgFgGyWT3cskHFnDIUMeYp_ee0sBI9BG4RbVFXeW16xfKGTBWpNSMxnUHj1UV lE78CwdqNYhjYhTaLmRd.KcWJfoJvrCjMYN4rfpvtU2o2MeSXT4qnRcWIvl98WUTs87iSeyY344U lj4BtHdavLf93JpE6m2q8J7qtRvpadXGXm1_2Uy_GU6nmrW5nmL54TQY0Woss2HlN_Gi5QirHbyZ D8LlCyO81Yy9dvJBkByuC1HYH3zVTjodW1NBuZPqa.ICY7UXZyeuD0haA98iGDSwVK7MjZ3Mzfef uJXuvaqC7rQH8tw98_BWadovcZo8uyzGIro8QIJzKxwrowTSb3RH3jozpVBeVjfzv5hL0uKoLvMQ lTqFKEwN.f6n9RMBdVBNTQJbYsWxNFyIWhhmIh6eyweSh2lf3Z0iicXBDUfG9eutG4yWySl5fEHf AQQt_ImigcAW_Ve55tjqlgeo1aomB4mDNGDCO3lT39JU12XXf2TMjJxtLZ5fjtvYIGezVfI095HV KyzQ8tYPj2.tM4GXNoMVlc6ovVBEsJ1C4rKmI_CwZmiHJbBbdUri1zBLuv8AAQlfgw.0Hxwzy0y. IucJQ3paU2Y0aJxNAlP.KJHq7CO9brcDWZfh_O80cLrxTy2_mkoIKRfRf07YWpl7zizaYYESQdlz o59TWgGF7cAt06op7XycUUnkXNLV.IVfBNlF8xuahMfAGwH.ukyLkejn.sP0iN5B4.7McDoO9qO7 dAQSBxECWPpZxBYEMQsHBYZFk4NG0XH_nM.7dDGrFXynCHFC.TFNj9AOy2ndeatra9At2TaaaDNj mb7EaMGCyREyuiuUxoT.Eqpluaqgl2DN8bgeGBynDbPdnK_vViprqCUuKwRjW7XjDOJygwkzjnpf HEqM_XZBQCOQ2I2MNBjV9y4ziLgUDwWCpebyv834s1Poi04eUi8eUuob1RNm2Tp.Po.mM1A6jGBL tXxvZBqyJoep_cXYAVwids3HTwCYO2WwpzFGRBHKaFCDZf7X6jY4- X-Sonic-MF: Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic306.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:58:17 +0000 Received: by kubenode528.mail-prod1.omega.ne1.yahoo.com (VZM Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID c4c04d9609476e39968ee243e8acedb8; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <63d4dc72-52ae-46ff-3996-3b80d41f4978@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 07:58:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Subject: Re: [RFC 17/20] ima: Use integrity_admin_ns_capable() to check corresponding capability Content-Language: en-US To: Christian Brauner , James Bottomley Cc: Stefan Berger , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com, serge@hallyn.com, containers@lists.linux.dev, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, krzysztof.struczynski@huawei.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, mpeters@redhat.com, lhinds@redhat.com, lsturman@redhat.com, puiterwi@redhat.com, jamjoom@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com, rgb@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, Denis Semakin , Casey Schaufler References: <20211130160654.1418231-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <20211130160654.1418231-18-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <7c751783b28766412f158e5ca074748ed18070bd.camel@linux.ibm.com> <34085058-ff5f-c28e-c716-6f4fa71747a3@linux.ibm.com> <4b12309289c6a51991c5062fed0fde03e0a6f703.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20211202125955.qcmmnblit3nmatdo@wittgenstein> <20211202130110.ij5h3o6mcbqscjqh@wittgenstein> From: Casey Schaufler In-Reply-To: <20211202130110.ij5h3o6mcbqscjqh@wittgenstein> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.19306 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.yahoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On 12/2/2021 5:01 AM, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:59:55PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 02:29:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:35 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>> On 12/1/21 11:58, James Bottomley wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 11:06 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>>>> From: Denis Semakin >>>>>> >>>>>> Use integrity_admin_ns_capable() to check corresponding >>>>>> capability to allow read/write IMA policy without CAP_SYS_ADMIN >>>>>> but with CAP_INTEGRITY_ADMIN. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Denis Semakin >>>>>> --- >>>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c >>>>>> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c >>>>>> index fd2798f2d224..6766bb8262f2 100644 >>>>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c >>>>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c >>>>>> @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ static int ima_open_policy(struct inode >>>>>> *inode, >>>>>> struct file *filp) >>>>>> #else >>>>>> if ((filp->f_flags & O_ACCMODE) != O_RDONLY) >>>>>> return -EACCES; >>>>>> - if (!ns_capable(ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>>>>> + if (!integrity_admin_ns_capable(ns->user_ns)) >>>>> so this one is basically replacing what you did in RFC 16/20, which >>>>> seems a little redundant. >>>>> >>>>> The question I'd like to ask is: is there still a reason for >>>>> needing CAP_INTEGRITY_ADMIN? My thinking is that now IMA is pretty >>>>> much tied to requiring a user (and a mount, because of >>>>> securityfs_ns) namespace, there might not be a pressing need for an >>>>> admin capability separated from CAP_SYS_ADMIN because the owner of >>>>> the user namespace passes the ns_capable(..., CAP_SYS_ADMIN) >>>>> check. The rationale in >>>> Casey suggested using CAP_MAC_ADMIN, which I think would also work. >>>> >>>> CAP_MAC_ADMIN (since Linux 2.6.25) >>>> Allow MAC configuration or state changes. Implemented >>>> for >>>> the Smack Linux Security Module (LSM). >>>> >>>> >>>> Down the road I think we should cover setting file extended >>>> attributes with the same capability as well for when a user signs >>>> files or installs packages with file signatures. A container runtime >>>> could hold CAP_SYS_ADMIN while setting up a container and mounting >>>> filesystems and drop it for the first process started there. Since we >>>> are using the user namespace to spawn an IMA namespace, we would then >>>> require CAP_SYSTEM_ADMIN to be left available so that the user can do >>>> IMA related stuff in the container (set or append to the policy, >>>> write file signatures). I am not sure whether that should be the case >>>> or rather give the user something finer grained, such as >>>> CAP_MAC_ADMIN. So, it's about granularity... The important rationale for capabilities is separation of privilege from user id. Granularity has always been a contentious issue. Whether you use CAP_SYS_ADMIN or CAP_MAC_ADMIN you are using privilege, and need to be diligent. >>> It's possible ... any orchestration system that doesn't enter a user >>> namespace has to strictly regulate capabilities. I'm probably biased >>> because I always use a user_ns so I never really had to mess with >>> capabilities. >>> >>>>> https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/IMA_Namespacing_design_considerations >>>>> >>>>> Is effectively "because CAP_SYS_ADMIN is too powerful" but that's >>>>> no longer true of the user namespace owner. It only passes the >>>>> ns_capable() check not the capable() one, so while it does get >>>>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN, it can only use it in a few situations which >>>>> represent quite a power reduction already. >>>> At least docker containers drop CAP_SYS_ADMIN. >>> Well docker doesn't use the user_ns. But even given that, >>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN is always dropped for most container systems. What >>> happens when you enter a user namespace is the ns_capable( ..., >>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN) check returns true if you're the owner of the user_ns, >>> in the same way it would for root. So effectively entering a user >>> namespace without CAP_SYS_ADMIN but mapping the owner id to 0 (what >>> unshare -r --user does) gives you back a form of CAP_SYS_ADMIN that >>> responds only in the places in the kernel that have a ns_capable() >>> check instead of a capable() one (most of the places you list below). >>> This is the principle of how unprivileged containers actually work ... >>> and the source of some of our security problems if you get back an >>> ability to do something you shouldn't be allowed to do as an >>> unprivileged user. >>> >>>> I am not sure what the decision was based on but probably they don't >>>> want to give the user what is not absolutely necessary, but usage of >>>> user namespaces (with IMA namespaces) would kind of force it to be >>>> available then to do IMA-related stuff ... >>>> >>>> Following this man page here >>>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/user_namespaces.7.html >>>> >>>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN in a user namespace is about >>>> >>>> - bind-mounting filesystems >>>> >>>> - mounting /proc filesystems >>>> >>>> - creating nested user namespaces >>>> >>>> - configuring UTS namespace >>>> >>>> - configuring whether setgroups() can be used >>>> >>>> - usage of setns() >>>> >>>> >>>> Do we want to add '- only way of *setting up* IMA related stuff' to >>>> this list? >>> I don't see why not, but other container people should weigh in >>> because, as I said, I mostly use the user namespace and unprivileged >>> containers and don't bother with capabilities. >> There are very few scenarios where dropping capabilities in an >> unprivileged container makes sense. In a lot of other scenarios it is >> just a misunderstanding of the meaning of capabilities and their >> relationship to user namespaces. Usually, granting a full set of >> capabilities to the payload of an unprivigileged container is the right >> thing to do. All things that are properly namespaced will check >> capabilities in the relevant user namespace. Those that aren't will >> check them against the initial user namespaces. >> >> But I do think the question of whether or not ima should go into >> cap_sys_admin is more a question of capability semantics then it is in >> how exactly ima is namespaced. We do have agreed before that overloading >> cap_sys_admin further isn't ideal. Often we end up rectifying that >> mistake later. For example, how we moved stuff like criu, bpf, and perf >> to their own capability. Now we're left with stuff like: >> >> static inline bool perfmon_capable(void) >> { >> return capable(CAP_PERFMON) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN); >> } >> >> static inline bool bpf_capable(void) >> { >> return capable(CAP_BPF) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN); >> } >> >> static inline bool checkpoint_restore_ns_capable(struct user_namespace *ns) >> { >> return ns_capable(ns, CAP_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE) || >> ns_capable(ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN); >> } >> >> for the sake of adhering to legacy behavior. I think we can skip over >> that mistake and introduce cap_sys_integrity. > (Or under CAP_MAC_ADMIN as suggested elsewhere in the thread as I saw > just now.)