[PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Frederick Lawler]

While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace creation, we
used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to prevent
a call to create_user_ns().

The calls look something like this:

    cred = prepare_creds()
        security_prepare_creds()
            call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
    if (cred)
        create_user_ns(cred)

We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.

The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]

Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]

This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns() function
and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.

Links:
1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/

Changes since v1:
- Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook patch
- Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
- Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
  struct cred
- Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
  create_user_ns()
- Update documentation to reflect changes

Frederick Lawler (4):
  security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
  bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
  selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
  selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook

 include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
 include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
 include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
 kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
 kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
 security/security.c                           |  5 ++
 security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
 security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
 10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c

-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 1/4] security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Frederick Lawler]

Preventing user namespace (privileged or otherwise) creation comes in a
few of forms in order of granularity:

        1. /proc/sys/user/max_user_namespaces sysctl
        2. OS specific patch(es)
        3. CONFIG_USER_NS

To block a task based on its attributes, the LSM hook cred_prepare is a
good candidate for use because it provides more granular control, and
it is called before create_user_ns():

        cred = prepare_creds()
                security_prepare_creds()
                        call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
        if (cred)
                create_user_ns(cred)

Since security_prepare_creds() is meant for LSMs to copy and prepare
credentials, access control is an unintended use of the hook. Therefore
introduce a new function security_create_user_ns() with an accompanying
create_user_ns LSM hook.

This hook takes the prepared creds for LSM authors to write policy
against. On success, the new namespace is applied to credentials,
otherwise an error is returned.

Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>

---
Changes since v1:
- Changed commit wording
- Moved execution to be after id mapping check
- Changed signature to only accept a const struct cred *
---
 include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 1 +
 include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     | 4 ++++
 include/linux/security.h      | 6 ++++++
 kernel/user_namespace.c       | 5 +++++
 security/security.c           | 5 +++++
 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
index eafa1d2489fd..3eabd6b10776 100644
--- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
+++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
@@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, -ENOSYS, task_prctl, int option, unsigned long arg2,
 	 unsigned long arg3, unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
 LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, task_to_inode, struct task_struct *p,
 	 struct inode *inode)
+LSM_HOOK(int, 0, create_user_ns, const struct cred *cred)
 LSM_HOOK(int, 0, ipc_permission, struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp, short flag)
 LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, ipc_getsecid, struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp,
 	 u32 *secid)
diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
index 91c8146649f5..07f833da0bbf 100644
--- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
+++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
@@ -799,6 +799,10 @@
  *	security attributes, e.g. for /proc/pid inodes.
  *	@p contains the task_struct for the task.
  *	@inode contains the inode structure for the inode.
+ * @create_user_ns:
+ *	Check permission prior to creating a new user namespace.
+ *	@cred points to prepared creds.
+ *	Return 0 if successful, otherwise < 0 error code.
  *
  * Security hooks for Netlink messaging.
  *
diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
index 7fc4e9f49f54..a195bf33246a 100644
--- a/include/linux/security.h
+++ b/include/linux/security.h
@@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ int security_task_kill(struct task_struct *p, struct kernel_siginfo *info,
 int security_task_prctl(int option, unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
 			unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5);
 void security_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p, struct inode *inode);
+int security_create_user_ns(const struct cred *cred);
 int security_ipc_permission(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp, short flag);
 void security_ipc_getsecid(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp, u32 *secid);
 int security_msg_msg_alloc(struct msg_msg *msg);
@@ -1185,6 +1186,11 @@ static inline int security_task_prctl(int option, unsigned long arg2,
 static inline void security_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
 { }
 
+static inline int security_create_user_ns(const struct cred *cred)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static inline int security_ipc_permission(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp,
 					  short flag)
 {
diff --git a/kernel/user_namespace.c b/kernel/user_namespace.c
index 5481ba44a8d6..3f464bbda0e9 100644
--- a/kernel/user_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/user_namespace.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 #include <linux/highuid.h>
 #include <linux/cred.h>
 #include <linux/securebits.h>
+#include <linux/security.h>
 #include <linux/keyctl.h>
 #include <linux/key-type.h>
 #include <keys/user-type.h>
@@ -113,6 +114,10 @@ int create_user_ns(struct cred *new)
 	    !kgid_has_mapping(parent_ns, group))
 		goto fail_dec;
 
+	ret = security_create_user_ns(new);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto fail_dec;
+
 	ret = -ENOMEM;
 	ns = kmem_cache_zalloc(user_ns_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!ns)
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 188b8f782220..c700dbdc14fe 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -1903,6 +1903,11 @@ void security_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
 	call_void_hook(task_to_inode, p, inode);
 }
 
+int security_create_user_ns(const struct cred *cred)
+{
+	return call_int_hook(create_user_ns, 0, cred);
+}
+
 int security_ipc_permission(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp, short flag)
 {
 	return call_int_hook(ipc_permission, 0, ipcp, flag);
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 2/4] bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable

[Frederick Lawler]

Users may want to audit calls to security_create_user_ns() and access
user space memory. Also create_user_ns() runs without
pagefault_disabled(). Therefore, make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
for mandatory access control policies.

Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>

---
Changes since v1:
- None
---
 kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
index c1351df9f7ee..75853965e7b0 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
@@ -250,6 +250,7 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_getsecid_obj)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_prctl)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_setscheduler)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_to_inode)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_create_user_ns)
 BTF_SET_END(sleepable_lsm_hooks)
 
 bool bpf_lsm_is_sleepable_hook(u32 btf_id)
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook

[Frederick Lawler]

The LSM hook create_user_ns was introduced to provide LSM's an
opportunity to block or allow unprivileged user namespace creation. This
test serves two purposes: it provides a test eBPF implementation, and
tests the hook successfully blocks or allows user namespace creation.

This tests 4 cases:

        1. Unattached bpf program does not block unpriv user namespace
           creation.
        2. Attached bpf program allows user namespace creation given
           CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges.
        3. Attached bpf program denies user namespace creation for a
           user without CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
        4. The sleepable implementation loads

Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>

---
The generic deny_namespace file name is used for future namespace
expansion. I didn't want to limit these files to just the create_user_ns
hook.

Changes since v1:
- Introduce this patch
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 127 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a1fb07038dd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "test_deny_namespace.skel.h"
+#include <sched.h>
+#include "cap_helpers.h"
+
+#define STACK_SIZE (1024 * 1024)
+static char child_stack[STACK_SIZE];
+
+int clone_callback(void *arg)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int create_new_user_ns(void)
+{
+	int status;
+	pid_t cpid;
+
+	cpid = clone(clone_callback, child_stack + STACK_SIZE,
+		     CLONE_NEWUSER | SIGCHLD, NULL);
+
+	if (cpid == -1)
+		return errno;
+
+	if (cpid == 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	waitpid(cpid, &status, 0);
+	if (WIFEXITED(status))
+		return WEXITSTATUS(status);
+
+	return -1;
+}
+
+static void test_create_user_ns_bpf(void)
+{
+	__u32 cap_mask = 1ULL << CAP_SYS_ADMIN;
+	__u64 old_caps = 0;
+
+	ASSERT_OK(create_new_user_ns(), "priv new user ns");
+
+	cap_disable_effective(cap_mask, &old_caps);
+
+	ASSERT_EQ(create_new_user_ns(), EPERM, "unpriv new user ns");
+
+	if (cap_mask & old_caps)
+		cap_enable_effective(cap_mask, NULL);
+}
+
+static void test_unpriv_create_user_ns_no_bpf(void)
+{
+	__u32 cap_mask = 1ULL << CAP_SYS_ADMIN;
+	__u64 old_caps = 0;
+
+	cap_disable_effective(cap_mask, &old_caps);
+
+	ASSERT_OK(create_new_user_ns(), "no-bpf unpriv new user ns");
+
+	if (cap_mask & old_caps)
+		cap_enable_effective(cap_mask, NULL);
+}
+
+void test_deny_namespace(void)
+{
+	struct test_deny_namespace *skel = NULL;
+	int err;
+
+	if (test__start_subtest("unpriv_create_user_ns_no_bpf"))
+		test_unpriv_create_user_ns_no_bpf();
+
+	skel = test_deny_namespace__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel load"))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	err = test_deny_namespace__attach(skel);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "attach"))
+		goto close_prog;
+
+	if (test__start_subtest("create_user_ns_bpf"))
+		test_create_user_ns_bpf();
+
+	test_deny_namespace__detach(skel);
+
+close_prog:
+	test_deny_namespace__destroy(skel);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..eedede891431
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <linux/capability.h>
+
+struct kernel_cap_struct {
+	__u32 cap[_LINUX_CAPABILITY_U32S_3];
+} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+
+struct cred {
+	struct kernel_cap_struct cap_effective;
+} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+SEC("lsm/create_user_ns")
+int BPF_PROG(test_create_user_ns, const struct cred *cred, int ret)
+{
+	struct kernel_cap_struct caps = cred->cap_effective;
+	int cap_index = CAP_TO_INDEX(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
+	__u32 cap_mask = CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_ADMIN);
+
+	if (ret)
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = -EPERM;
+	if (caps.cap[cap_index] & cap_mask)
+		return 0;
+
+	return -EPERM;
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/create_user_ns")
+int BPF_PROG(test_sleepable_create_user_ns, const struct cred *cred, int ret)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 4/4] selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook

[Frederick Lawler]

Unprivileged user namespace creation is an intended feature to enable
sandboxing, however this feature is often used to as an initial step to
perform a privilege escalation attack.

This patch implements a new namespace { userns_create } access control
permission to restrict which domains allow or deny user namespace
creation. This is necessary for system administrators to quickly protect
their systems while waiting for vulnerability patches to be applied.

This permission can be used in the following way:

        allow domA_t domB_t : namespace { userns_create };

Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>

---
Changes since v1:
- Introduce this patch
---
 security/selinux/hooks.c            | 9 +++++++++
 security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
index beceb89f68d9..73fbcb434fe0 100644
--- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
+++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
@@ -4227,6 +4227,14 @@ static void selinux_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p,
 	spin_unlock(&isec->lock);
 }
 
+static int selinux_userns_create(const struct cred *cred)
+{
+	u32 sid = current_sid();
+
+	return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_NAMESPACE,
+						NAMESPACE__USERNS_CREATE, NULL);
+}
+
 /* Returns error only if unable to parse addresses */
 static int selinux_parse_skb_ipv4(struct sk_buff *skb,
 			struct common_audit_data *ad, u8 *proto)
@@ -7117,6 +7125,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
 	LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_movememory, selinux_task_movememory),
 	LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_kill, selinux_task_kill),
 	LSM_HOOK_INIT(task_to_inode, selinux_task_to_inode),
+	LSM_HOOK_INIT(create_user_ns, selinux_userns_create),
 
 	LSM_HOOK_INIT(ipc_permission, selinux_ipc_permission),
 	LSM_HOOK_INIT(ipc_getsecid, selinux_ipc_getsecid),
diff --git a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
index ff757ae5f253..9943e85c6b3e 100644
--- a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
+++ b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
@@ -254,6 +254,8 @@ const struct security_class_mapping secclass_map[] = {
 	  { COMMON_FILE_PERMS, NULL } },
 	{ "io_uring",
 	  { "override_creds", "sqpoll", NULL } },
+	{ "namespace",
+	  { "userns_create", NULL } },
 	{ NULL }
   };
 
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Christian Göttsche]

,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>
> While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace creation, we
> used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to prevent
> a call to create_user_ns().
>
> The calls look something like this:
>
>     cred = prepare_creds()
>         security_prepare_creds()
>             call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
>     if (cred)
>         create_user_ns(cred)
>
> We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
> introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
>
> The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
> is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
> meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
>
> Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
> a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
>
> This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns() function
> and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.

Some thoughts:

I.

Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
and potential future namespaces?
Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.

    LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
unsigned int flags)

where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
(like CLONE_NEWUSER).

II.

While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for setns(2)

    LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)

III.

Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
further governed?
SELinux example:

    type domainA_userns_t;
    type_transition domainA_t domainA_t : namespace domainA_userns_t "user";
    allow domainA_t domainA_userns_t:namespace create;

    # domainB calling setns(2) with domainA as target
    allow domainB_t domainA_userns_t:namespace join;

>
> Links:
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
> 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook patch
> - Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
> - Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
>   struct cred
> - Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
>   create_user_ns()
> - Update documentation to reflect changes
>
> Frederick Lawler (4):
>   security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
>   bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
>   selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>   selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook
>
>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
>  include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
>  kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
>  kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
>  security/security.c                           |  5 ++
>  security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
>  security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
>  10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Frederick Lawler]

On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace creation, we
>> used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to prevent
>> a call to create_user_ns().
>>
>> The calls look something like this:
>>
>>      cred = prepare_creds()
>>          security_prepare_creds()
>>              call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
>>      if (cred)
>>          create_user_ns(cred)
>>
>> We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
>> introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
>>
>> The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
>> is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
>> meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
>>
>> Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
>> a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
>>
>> This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns() function
>> and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> I.
> 
> Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
> and potential future namespaces?

The main issue with a generic hook is that different namespaces have 
different calling contexts. We decided in a previous discussion to 
opt-out of a generic hook for this reason. [1]

> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.

That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the security_*() 
match with the hook name matched with the caller function to keep things 
all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I can rename the 
hook for v3.

> 
>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
> unsigned int flags)
> 
> where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
> (like CLONE_NEWUSER).
> 
> II.
> 
> While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for setns(2)
> 
>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
> struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)
> 

IIUC, setns() will create a new namespace for the other namespaces 
except for user namespace. If we add a security hook for the other 
create_*_ns() functions, then we can catch setns() at that point.

> III.
> 
> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
> further governed?
> SELinux example:
> 
>      type domainA_userns_t;
>      type_transition domainA_t domainA_t : namespace domainA_userns_t "user";
>      allow domainA_t domainA_userns_t:namespace create;
> 
>      # domainB calling setns(2) with domainA as target
>      allow domainB_t domainA_userns_t:namespace join;
> 

Links:
1. 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHC9VhSTkEMT90Tk+=iTyp3npWEm+3imrkFVX2qb=XsOPp9F=A@mail.gmail.com/

>>
>> Links:
>> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
>> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
>> 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook patch
>> - Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
>> - Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
>>    struct cred
>> - Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
>>    create_user_ns()
>> - Update documentation to reflect changes
>>
>> Frederick Lawler (4):
>>    security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
>>    bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
>>    selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>>    selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook
>>
>>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
>>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
>>   include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
>>   kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
>>   kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
>>   security/security.c                           |  5 ++
>>   security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
>>   security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
>>   10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
>>
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Christian Brauner]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 09:01:32AM -0500, Frederick Lawler wrote:
> On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> > ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace creation, we
> > > used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to prevent
> > > a call to create_user_ns().
> > > 
> > > The calls look something like this:
> > > 
> > >      cred = prepare_creds()
> > >          security_prepare_creds()
> > >              call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
> > >      if (cred)
> > >          create_user_ns(cred)
> > > 
> > > We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
> > > introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
> > > 
> > > The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
> > > is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
> > > meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
> > > 
> > > Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
> > > a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
> > > 
> > > This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns() function
> > > and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.
> > 
> > Some thoughts:
> > 
> > I.
> > 
> > Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
> > and potential future namespaces?
> 
> The main issue with a generic hook is that different namespaces have
> different calling contexts. We decided in a previous discussion to opt-out
> of a generic hook for this reason. [1]

Agreed.

> 
> > Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
> 
> That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the security_*()
> match with the hook name matched with the caller function to keep things all
> aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I can rename the hook for
> v3.
> 
> > 
> >      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
> > unsigned int flags)
> > 
> > where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
> > (like CLONE_NEWUSER).
> > 
> > II.
> > 
> > While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for setns(2)
> > 
> >      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
> > struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)
> > 
> 
> IIUC, setns() will create a new namespace for the other namespaces except
> for user namespace. If we add a security hook for the other create_*_ns()

setns() doesn't create new namespaces. It just switches to already
existing ones:

setns(<pidfd>, <flags>)
-> prepare_nsset()
      /* 
       * Notice the 0 passed as flags which means all namespaces will
       * just take a reference.
       */
   -> create_new_namespaces(0, ...)

you're thinking about unshare() and unshare() will be caught in
create_user_ns().

> functions, then we can catch setns() at that point.

If you block the creation of user namespaces by unprivileged users in
create_user_ns() you can only create user namespaces as a privileged
user. Consequently only a privileged users can setns() to a user
namespace. So either the caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the parent userns
or they are located in the parent userns and are the owner of the userns
they are attaching to. So if you lock create_user_ns() to
capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) you should be done.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Casey Schaufler]

On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
> On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
>> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace
>>> creation, we
>>> used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to
>>> prevent
>>> a call to create_user_ns().
>>>
>>> The calls look something like this:
>>>
>>>      cred = prepare_creds()
>>>          security_prepare_creds()
>>>              call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
>>>      if (cred)
>>>          create_user_ns(cred)
>>>
>>> We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
>>> introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
>>>
>>> The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
>>> is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
>>> meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
>>>
>>> Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
>>> a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
>>>
>>> This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns()
>>> function
>>> and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.
>>
>> Some thoughts:
>>
>> I.
>>
>> Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
>> and potential future namespaces?
>
> The main issue with a generic hook is that different namespaces have
> different calling contexts. We decided in a previous discussion to
> opt-out of a generic hook for this reason. [1]
>
>> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
>
> That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the
> security_*() match with the hook name matched with the caller function
> to keep things all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I
> can rename the hook for v3.
>
>>
>>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
>> unsigned int flags)
>>
>> where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
>> (like CLONE_NEWUSER).
>>
>> II.
>>
>> While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for
>> setns(2)
>>
>>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
>> struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)
>>
>
> IIUC, setns() will create a new namespace for the other namespaces
> except for user namespace. If we add a security hook for the other
> create_*_ns() functions, then we can catch setns() at that point.
>
>> III.
>>
>> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
>> further governed?

That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.
That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,
unified security module namespace effort. There's more work to that than
adding a context to a namespace. Treating namespaces as objects is almost,
but not quite, solidifying containers as a kernel construct. We know we
can't do that.

>> SELinux example:
>>
>>      type domainA_userns_t;
>>      type_transition domainA_t domainA_t : namespace domainA_userns_t
>> "user";
>>      allow domainA_t domainA_userns_t:namespace create;
>>
>>      # domainB calling setns(2) with domainA as target
>>      allow domainB_t domainA_userns_t:namespace join;

While I'm not an expert on SELinux policy, I'd bet a refreshing beverage
that there's already a way to achieve this with existing constructs.
Smack, which is subject+object MAC couldn't care less about the user
namespace configuration. User namespaces are DAC constructs.

>>
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHC9VhSTkEMT90Tk+=iTyp3npWEm+3imrkFVX2qb=XsOPp9F=A@mail.gmail.com/
>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> 1.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
>>> 3.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>>> patch
>>> - Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
>>> - Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
>>>    struct cred
>>> - Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
>>>    create_user_ns()
>>> - Update documentation to reflect changes
>>>
>>> Frederick Lawler (4):
>>>    security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
>>>    bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
>>>    selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>>>    selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook
>>>
>>>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
>>>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
>>>   include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
>>>   kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
>>>   kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
>>>   security/security.c                           |  5 ++
>>>   security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
>>>   security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
>>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
>>>   10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
>>>   create mode 100644
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 2.30.2
>>>
>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Serge E. Hallyn]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 09:11:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
> > On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> >> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace
> >>> creation, we
> >>> used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to
> >>> prevent
> >>> a call to create_user_ns().
> >>>
> >>> The calls look something like this:
> >>>
> >>>      cred = prepare_creds()
> >>>          security_prepare_creds()
> >>>              call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
> >>>      if (cred)
> >>>          create_user_ns(cred)
> >>>
> >>> We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
> >>> introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
> >>>
> >>> The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
> >>> is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
> >>> meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
> >>> a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
> >>>
> >>> This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns()
> >>> function
> >>> and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.
> >>
> >> Some thoughts:
> >>
> >> I.
> >>
> >> Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
> >> and potential future namespaces?
> >
> > The main issue with a generic hook is that different namespaces have
> > different calling contexts. We decided in a previous discussion to
> > opt-out of a generic hook for this reason. [1]
> >
> >> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
> >
> > That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the
> > security_*() match with the hook name matched with the caller function
> > to keep things all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I
> > can rename the hook for v3.
> >
> >>
> >>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
> >> unsigned int flags)
> >>
> >> where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
> >> (like CLONE_NEWUSER).
> >>
> >> II.
> >>
> >> While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for
> >> setns(2)
> >>
> >>      LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
> >> struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)
> >>
> >
> > IIUC, setns() will create a new namespace for the other namespaces
> > except for user namespace. If we add a security hook for the other
> > create_*_ns() functions, then we can catch setns() at that point.
> >
> >> III.
> >>
> >> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
> >> further governed?
> 
> That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
> efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.
> That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,

I feel like you're attaching more meaning to this than there needs to be.
I *think* he's just talking about a user_namespace->u_security void*.
So that for instance while deciding whether to allow some transition,
selinux could check whether the caller's user namespace was created by
a task in an selinux context authorized to create user namespaces.

The "user namespaces are DAC and orthogonal to MAC" is of course true
(where the LSM does not itself tie them together), except that we all
know that a process running as root in a user namespace gains access to
often-less-trustworthy code gated under CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

> unified security module namespace effort. There's more work to that than
> adding a context to a namespace. Treating namespaces as objects is almost,
> but not quite, solidifying containers as a kernel construct. We know we
> can't do that.

What we "can't do" (imo) is to create a "full container" construct which
ties together the various namespaces and other concepts in a restrictive
way.

> >> SELinux example:
> >>
> >>      type domainA_userns_t;
> >>      type_transition domainA_t domainA_t : namespace domainA_userns_t
> >> "user";
> >>      allow domainA_t domainA_userns_t:namespace create;
> >>
> >>      # domainB calling setns(2) with domainA as target
> >>      allow domainB_t domainA_userns_t:namespace join;
> 
> While I'm not an expert on SELinux policy, I'd bet a refreshing beverage
> that there's already a way to achieve this with existing constructs.
> Smack, which is subject+object MAC couldn't care less about the user
> namespace configuration. User namespaces are DAC constructs.
> 
> >>
> >
> > Links:
> > 1.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHC9VhSTkEMT90Tk+=iTyp3npWEm+3imrkFVX2qb=XsOPp9F=A@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> >>>
> >>> Links:
> >>> 1.
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
> >>>
> >>> 2.
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
> >>> 3.
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/
> >>>
> >>> Changes since v1:
> >>> - Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
> >>> patch
> >>> - Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
> >>> - Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
> >>>    struct cred
> >>> - Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
> >>>    create_user_ns()
> >>> - Update documentation to reflect changes
> >>>
> >>> Frederick Lawler (4):
> >>>    security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
> >>>    bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
> >>>    selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
> >>>    selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook
> >>>
> >>>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
> >>>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
> >>>   include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
> >>>   kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
> >>>   kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
> >>>   security/security.c                           |  5 ++
> >>>   security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
> >>>   security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
> >>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
> >>>   10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
> >>>   create mode 100644
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
> >>>   create mode 100644
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> 2.30.2
> >>>
> >

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Frederick Lawler]

On 7/14/22 9:27 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 09:11:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
>>> On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
>>>> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> While creating a LSM BPF MAC policy to block user namespace
>>>>> creation, we
>>>>> used the LSM cred_prepare hook because that is the closest hook to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>> a call to create_user_ns().
>>>>>
>>>>> The calls look something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>       cred = prepare_creds()
>>>>>           security_prepare_creds()
>>>>>               call_int_hook(cred_prepare, ...
>>>>>       if (cred)
>>>>>           create_user_ns(cred)
>>>>>
>>>>> We noticed that error codes were not propagated from this hook and
>>>>> introduced a patch [1] to propagate those errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion notes that security_prepare_creds()
>>>>> is not appropriate for MAC policies, and instead the hook is
>>>>> meant for LSM authors to prepare credentials for mutation. [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, we concluded that a better course of action is to introduce
>>>>> a new security hook for LSM authors. [3]
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set first introduces a new security_create_user_ns()
>>>>> function
>>>>> and create_user_ns LSM hook, then marks the hook as sleepable in BPF.
>>>>
>>>> Some thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> I.
>>>>
>>>> Why not make the hook more generic, e.g. support all other existing
>>>> and potential future namespaces?
>>>
>>> The main issue with a generic hook is that different namespaces have
>>> different calling contexts. We decided in a previous discussion to
>>> opt-out of a generic hook for this reason. [1]
>>>
>>>> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
>>>
>>> That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the
>>> security_*() match with the hook name matched with the caller function
>>> to keep things all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I
>>> can rename the hook for v3.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>       LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_create, const struct cred *cred,
>>>> unsigned int flags)
>>>>
>>>> where flags is a bitmap of CLONE flags from include/uapi/linux/sched.h
>>>> (like CLONE_NEWUSER).
>>>>
>>>> II.
>>>>
>>>> While adding policing for namespaces maybe also add a new hook for
>>>> setns(2)
>>>>
>>>>       LSM_HOOK(int, 0, namespace_join, const struct cred *subj,  const
>>>> struct cred *obj, unsigned int flags)
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIUC, setns() will create a new namespace for the other namespaces
>>> except for user namespace. If we add a security hook for the other
>>> create_*_ns() functions, then we can catch setns() at that point.
>>>
>>>> III.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
>>>> further governed?
>>
>> That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
>> efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.
>> That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,
> 
> I feel like you're attaching more meaning to this than there needs to be.
> I *think* he's just talking about a user_namespace->u_security void*.
> So that for instance while deciding whether to allow some transition,
> selinux could check whether the caller's user namespace was created by
> a task in an selinux context authorized to create user namespaces.
> 
> The "user namespaces are DAC and orthogonal to MAC" is of course true
> (where the LSM does not itself tie them together), except that we all
> know that a process running as root in a user namespace gains access to
> often-less-trustworthy code gated under CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 
>> unified security module namespace effort. There's more work to that than
>> adding a context to a namespace. Treating namespaces as objects is almost,
>> but not quite, solidifying containers as a kernel construct. We know we
>> can't do that.
> 
> What we "can't do" (imo) is to create a "full container" construct which
> ties together the various namespaces and other concepts in a restrictive
> way.
> 

Is this the direction we want to go with the SELinux implementation? If 
so, where can I find a similar implementation to make the userns_create 
work with this? If not, I have a v3 with the hook name change ready to post.

>>>> SELinux example:
>>>>
>>>>       type domainA_userns_t;
>>>>       type_transition domainA_t domainA_t : namespace domainA_userns_t
>>>> "user";
>>>>       allow domainA_t domainA_userns_t:namespace create;
>>>>
>>>>       # domainB calling setns(2) with domainA as target
>>>>       allow domainB_t domainA_userns_t:namespace join;
>>
>> While I'm not an expert on SELinux policy, I'd bet a refreshing beverage
>> that there's already a way to achieve this with existing constructs.
>> Smack, which is subject+object MAC couldn't care less about the user
>> namespace configuration. User namespaces are DAC constructs.
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> 1.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHC9VhSTkEMT90Tk+=iTyp3npWEm+3imrkFVX2qb=XsOPp9F=A@mail.gmail.com/
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Links:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220608150942.776446-1-fred@cloudflare.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y1xzyhub.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
>>>>> 3.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9fe9cd9f-1ded-a179-8ded-5fde8960a586@cloudflare.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>> - Add selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>>>>> patch
>>>>> - Add selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook patch
>>>>> - Change function signature of security_create_user_ns() to only take
>>>>>     struct cred
>>>>> - Move security_create_user_ns() call after id mapping check in
>>>>>     create_user_ns()
>>>>> - Update documentation to reflect changes
>>>>>
>>>>> Frederick Lawler (4):
>>>>>     security, lsm: Introduce security_create_user_ns()
>>>>>     bpf-lsm: Make bpf_lsm_create_user_ns() sleepable
>>>>>     selftests/bpf: Add tests verifying bpf lsm create_user_ns hook
>>>>>     selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook
>>>>>
>>>>>    include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h                 |  1 +
>>>>>    include/linux/lsm_hooks.h                     |  4 +
>>>>>    include/linux/security.h                      |  6 ++
>>>>>    kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c                          |  1 +
>>>>>    kernel/user_namespace.c                       |  5 ++
>>>>>    security/security.c                           |  5 ++
>>>>>    security/selinux/hooks.c                      |  9 ++
>>>>>    security/selinux/include/classmap.h           |  2 +
>>>>>    .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c | 88
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c | 39 ++++++++
>>>>>    10 files changed, 160 insertions(+)
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/deny_namespace.c
>>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_deny_namespace.c
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.30.2
>>>>>
>>>

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 6:32 PM Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>
> Unprivileged user namespace creation is an intended feature to enable
> sandboxing, however this feature is often used to as an initial step to
> perform a privilege escalation attack.
>
> This patch implements a new namespace { userns_create } access control
> permission to restrict which domains allow or deny user namespace
> creation. This is necessary for system administrators to quickly protect
> their systems while waiting for vulnerability patches to be applied.
>
> This permission can be used in the following way:
>
>         allow domA_t domB_t : namespace { userns_create };
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Introduce this patch
> ---
>  security/selinux/hooks.c            | 9 +++++++++
>  security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index beceb89f68d9..73fbcb434fe0 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -4227,6 +4227,14 @@ static void selinux_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p,
>         spin_unlock(&isec->lock);
>  }
>
> +static int selinux_userns_create(const struct cred *cred)
> +{
> +       u32 sid = current_sid();
> +
> +       return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_NAMESPACE,
> +                                               NAMESPACE__USERNS_CREATE, NULL);
> +}

As we continue to discuss this, I'm beginning to think that having a
dedicated object class for the userns might be a good idea.  I believe
I was the one who gave you these code snippets, so feel free to blame
me for the respin ;)

This is what I'm thinking:

  static int selinux_userns_create(const struct cred *cred)
  {
    u32 sid = current_sid();

    return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid,
                        SECCLASS_USER_NAMESPACE,
                        USER_NAMESPACE__CREATE, NULL);
  }

> diff --git a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> index ff757ae5f253..9943e85c6b3e 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> +++ b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> @@ -254,6 +254,8 @@ const struct security_class_mapping secclass_map[] = {
>           { COMMON_FILE_PERMS, NULL } },
>         { "io_uring",
>           { "override_creds", "sqpoll", NULL } },
> +       { "namespace",
> +         { "userns_create", NULL } },

The above would need to change to:

  { "user_namespace",
    { "create", NULL } }

-- 
paul-moore.com

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Paul Moore]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:11 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
> > On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> >> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
> >> wrote:

...

> >> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
> >
> > That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the
> > security_*() match with the hook name matched with the caller function
> > to keep things all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I
> > can rename the hook for v3.

No objection from me.

[Sorry for the delay, the last week or two has been pretty busy.]

> >> III.
> >>
> >> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
> >> further governed?
>
> That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
> efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.

I'm not sure I fully understand what Casey is saying here as SELinux
does not yet have an established namespace model to the best of my
understanding, but perhaps we are talking about different concepts for
the word "namespace"?

From a SELinux perspective, if we are going to control access to a
namespace beyond simple creation, we would need to assign the
namespace a label (inherited from the creating process).  Although
that would need some discussion among the SELinux folks as this would
mean treating a userns as a proper system entity from a policy
perspective which is ... interesting.

> That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,
> unified security module namespace effort.

We've talked about this before and I just don't see how that could
ever work, the LSM implementations are just too different to do
namespacing at the LSM layer.  If a LSM is going to namespace
themselves, they need the ability to define what that means without
having to worry about what other LSMs want to do.


--
paul-moore.com

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:42 PM Karl MacMillan
<karl@bigbadwolfsecurity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 6:34 PM Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unprivileged user namespace creation is an intended feature to enable
>> sandboxing, however this feature is often used to as an initial step to
>> perform a privilege escalation attack.
>>
>> This patch implements a new namespace { userns_create } access control
>> permission to restrict which domains allow or deny user namespace
>> creation. This is necessary for system administrators to quickly protect
>> their systems while waiting for vulnerability patches to be applied.
>>
>> This permission can be used in the following way:
>>
>>         allow domA_t domB_t : namespace { userns_create };
>
>
> Isn’t this actually domA_t domA_t : namespace . . .
>
> I got confused reading this initially trying to figure out what the second domain type would be, but looking at the code cleared that up.

Ah, good catch, thanks Karl!

-- 
paul-moore.com

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] selinux: Implement create_user_ns hook

[Frederick Lawler]

On 7/19/22 8:32 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 6:32 PM Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unprivileged user namespace creation is an intended feature to enable
>> sandboxing, however this feature is often used to as an initial step to
>> perform a privilege escalation attack.
>>
>> This patch implements a new namespace { userns_create } access control
>> permission to restrict which domains allow or deny user namespace
>> creation. This is necessary for system administrators to quickly protect
>> their systems while waiting for vulnerability patches to be applied.
>>
>> This permission can be used in the following way:
>>
>>          allow domA_t domB_t : namespace { userns_create };
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
>>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Introduce this patch
>> ---
>>   security/selinux/hooks.c            | 9 +++++++++
>>   security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 ++
>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> index beceb89f68d9..73fbcb434fe0 100644
>> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> @@ -4227,6 +4227,14 @@ static void selinux_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p,
>>          spin_unlock(&isec->lock);
>>   }
>>
>> +static int selinux_userns_create(const struct cred *cred)
>> +{
>> +       u32 sid = current_sid();
>> +
>> +       return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid, SECCLASS_NAMESPACE,
>> +                                               NAMESPACE__USERNS_CREATE, NULL);
>> +}
> 
> As we continue to discuss this, I'm beginning to think that having a
> dedicated object class for the userns might be a good idea.  I believe
> I was the one who gave you these code snippets, so feel free to blame
> me for the respin ;)
> 

No worries, I'll make this change for v3.

> This is what I'm thinking:
> 
>    static int selinux_userns_create(const struct cred *cred)
>    {
>      u32 sid = current_sid();
> 
>      return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, sid, sid,
>                          SECCLASS_USER_NAMESPACE,
>                          USER_NAMESPACE__CREATE, NULL);
>    }
> 
>> diff --git a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
>> index ff757ae5f253..9943e85c6b3e 100644
>> --- a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
>> +++ b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
>> @@ -254,6 +254,8 @@ const struct security_class_mapping secclass_map[] = {
>>            { COMMON_FILE_PERMS, NULL } },
>>          { "io_uring",
>>            { "override_creds", "sqpoll", NULL } },
>> +       { "namespace",
>> +         { "userns_create", NULL } },
> 
> The above would need to change to:
> 
>    { "user_namespace",
>      { "create", NULL } }
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Casey Schaufler]

On 7/19/2022 6:32 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:11 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
>>> On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
>>>> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
>>>> wrote:
> ..
>
>>>> Also I think the naming scheme is <object>_<verb>.
>>> That's a good call out. I was originally hoping to keep the
>>> security_*() match with the hook name matched with the caller function
>>> to keep things all aligned. If no one objects to renaming the hook, I
>>> can rename the hook for v3.
> No objection from me.
>
> [Sorry for the delay, the last week or two has been pretty busy.]
>
>>>> III.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
>>>> further governed?
>> That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
>> efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.
> I'm not sure I fully understand what Casey is saying here as SELinux
> does not yet have an established namespace model to the best of my
> understanding, but perhaps we are talking about different concepts for
> the word "namespace"?

Stephen Smalley proposed a SELinux namespace model, with patches,
some time back. It hasn't been adopted, but I've seen at least one
attempt to revive it. You're right that there isn't an established
model. The model proposed for Smack wasn't adopted either. My point
is that models have been developed and refinements and/or alternatives
are likely to be suggested.

>
> >From a SELinux perspective, if we are going to control access to a
> namespace beyond simple creation, we would need to assign the
> namespace a label (inherited from the creating process).  Although
> that would need some discussion among the SELinux folks as this would
> mean treating a userns as a proper system entity from a policy
> perspective which is ... interesting.
>
>> That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,
>> unified security module namespace effort.
> We've talked about this before and I just don't see how that could
> ever work, the LSM implementations are just too different to do
> namespacing at the LSM layer.

It's possible that fresh eyes might see options that those who have
been staring at the current state and historical proposals may have
missed.

>   If a LSM is going to namespace
> themselves, they need the ability to define what that means without
> having to worry about what other LSMs want to do.

Possibly. On the other hand, if someone came up with a rational scheme
for general xattr namespacing I don't see that anyone would pass it up.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:42 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/2022 6:32 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:11 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/8/2022 7:01 AM, Frederick Lawler wrote:
> >>> On 7/8/22 7:10 AM, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> >>>> ,On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 00:32, Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>
> >>>> wrote:

...

> >>>> III.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe even attach a security context to namespaces so they can be
> >>>> further governed?
> >> That would likely add confusion to the existing security module namespace
> >> efforts. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor have all developed namespace models.
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand what Casey is saying here as SELinux
> > does not yet have an established namespace model to the best of my
> > understanding, but perhaps we are talking about different concepts for
> > the word "namespace"?
>
> Stephen Smalley proposed a SELinux namespace model, with patches,
> some time back. It hasn't been adopted, but I've seen at least one
> attempt to revive it. You're right that there isn't an established
> model.

If it isn't in the mainline kernel, it isn't an established namespace model.

I ported Stephen's initial namespace patches to new kernels for quite
some time, look at the working-selinuxns branch in the main SELinux
repository, but that doesn't mean they are ready for upstreaming.
Aside from some pretty critical implementation holes, there is the
much larger conceptual issue of how to deal with persistent filesystem
objects.  We've discussed that quite a bit among the SELinux
developers but have yet to arrive at a good-enough solution.  I have
some thoughts on how we might be able to make forward progress on
that, but it's wildly off-topic for this patchset discussion.  I
mostly wanted to make sure I was understanding what you were
referencing when you talked about a "SELinux namespace model", and it
is what I suspected ... which I believe is unrelated to the patches
being discussed here.

> >> That, or it could replace the various independent efforts with a single,
> >> unified security module namespace effort.
> >
> > We've talked about this before and I just don't see how that could
> > ever work, the LSM implementations are just too different to do
> > namespacing at the LSM layer.
>
> It's possible that fresh eyes might see options that those who have
> been staring at the current state and historical proposals may have
> missed.

That's always a possibility, and I'm definitely open to a clever
approach that would resolve all the current issues and not paint us
into a corner in the future, but I haven't seen anything close (or any
serious effort for that matter).

... and this still remains way off-topic for a discussion around
adding a hook to allow LSMs to enforce access controls on user
namespace creation.

> >   If a LSM is going to namespace
> > themselves, they need the ability to define what that means without
> > having to worry about what other LSMs want to do.
>
> Possibly. On the other hand, if someone came up with a rational scheme
> for general xattr namespacing I don't see that anyone would pass it up.

Oh geez ...

Namespacing xattrs is not the same thing as namespacing LSMs.  LSMs
may make use of xattrs, and namespacing xattrs may make it easier to
namespace a given LSM, but I'm not aware of an in-tree LSM that would
be magically namespaced if xattrs were namespaced.

This patchset has nothing to do with xattrs, it deals with adding a
LSM hook to implement LSM-based access controls for user namespace
creation.

-- 
paul-moore.com