LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
	Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
	Nick Kralevich <nnk@google.com>, Nosh Minwalla <nosh@google.com>,
	Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@gmail.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Add a UFFD_SECURE flag to the userfaultfd API.
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:29:20 +0300
Message-ID: <20191023072920.GF12121@uranus.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX=1XUwsuKc6dinj3ZTnrK85m_+UL=iaYKj4EZtf-xm5g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:11:04PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Trying again.  It looks like I used the wrong address for Pavel.

Thanks for CC Andy! I must confess I didn't dive into userfaultfd engine
personally but let me CC more people involved from criu side. (overquoting
left untouched for their sake).

> 
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:14 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [adding more people because this is going to be an ABI break, sigh]
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 5:52 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 4:10 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The new secure flag makes userfaultfd use a new "secure" anonymous
> > > > > file object instead of the default one, letting security modules
> > > > > supervise userfaultfd use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requiring that users pass a new flag lets us avoid changing the
> > > > > semantics for existing callers.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any good reason not to make this be the default?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only downside I can see is that it would increase the memory usage
> > > > of userfaultfd(), but that doesn't seem like such a big deal.  A
> > > > lighter-weight alternative would be to have a single inode shared by
> > > > all userfaultfd instances, which would require a somewhat different
> > > > internal anon_inode API.
> > >
> > > I'd also prefer to just make SELinux use mandatory, but there's a
> > > nasty interaction with UFFD_EVENT_FORK. Adding a new UFFD_SECURE mode
> > > which blocks UFFD_EVENT_FORK sidesteps this problem. Maybe you know a
> > > better way to deal with it.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > But maybe we can go further: let's separate authentication and
> > > authorization, as we do in other LSM hooks. Let's split my
> > > inode_init_security_anon into two hooks, inode_init_security_anon and
> > > inode_create_anon. We'd define the former to just initialize the file
> > > object's security information --- in the SELinux case, figuring out
> > > its class and SID --- and define the latter to answer the yes/no
> > > question of whether a particular anonymous inode creation should be
> > > allowed. Normally, anon_inode_getfile2() would just call both hooks.
> > > We'd add another anon_inode_getfd flag, ANON_INODE_SKIP_AUTHORIZATION
> > > or something, that would tell anon_inode_getfile2() to skip calling
> > > the authorization hook, effectively making the creation always
> > > succeed. We can then make the UFFD code pass
> > > ANON_INODE_SKIP_AUTHORIZATION when it's creating a file object in the
> > > fork child while creating UFFD_EVENT_FORK messages.
> >
> > That sounds like an improvement.  Or maybe just teach SELinux that
> > this particular fd creation is actually making an anon_inode that is a
> > child of an existing anon inode and that the context should be copied
> > or whatever SELinux wants to do.  Like this, maybe:
> >
> > static int resolve_userfault_fork(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> >                                   struct userfaultfd_ctx *new,
> >                                   struct uffd_msg *msg)
> > {
> >         int fd;
> >
> > Change this:
> >
> >         fd = anon_inode_getfd("[userfaultfd]", &userfaultfd_fops, new,
> >                               O_RDWR | (new->flags & UFFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS));
> >
> > to something like:
> >
> >       fd = anon_inode_make_child_fd(..., ctx->inode, ...);
> >
> > where ctx->inode is the one context's inode.
> >
> > *** HOWEVER *** !!!
> >
> > Now that you've pointed this mechanism out, it is utterly and
> > completely broken and should be removed from the kernel outright or at
> > least severely restricted.  A .read implementation MUST NOT ACT ON THE
> > CALLING TASK.  Ever.  Just imagine the effect of passing a userfaultfd
> > as stdin to a setuid program.
> >
> > So I think the right solution might be to attempt to *remove*
> > UFFD_EVENT_FORK.  Maybe the solution is to say that, unless the
> > creator of a userfaultfd() has global CAP_SYS_ADMIN, then it cannot
> > use UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK) and print a warning (once) when
> > UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK is allowed.  And, after some suitable
> > deprecation period, just remove it.  If it's genuinely useful, it
> > needs an entirely new API based on ioctl() or a syscall.  Or even
> > recvmsg() :)
> >
> > And UFFD_SECURE should just become automatic, since you don't have a
> > problem any more. :-p
> >
> > --Andy
> 

	Cyrill

  reply index

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-12 19:15 [PATCH 0/7] Harden userfaultfd Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] Add a new flags-accepting interface for anonymous inodes Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14  4:26   ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-14 15:38   ` Jann Horn
2019-10-14 18:15     ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 18:30       ` Jann Horn
2019-10-15  8:08   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 2/7] Add a concept of a "secure" anonymous file Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14  3:01   ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-15  8:08   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 3/7] Add a UFFD_SECURE flag to the userfaultfd API Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:10   ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13  0:51     ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-13  1:14       ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13  1:38         ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-14 16:04         ` Jann Horn
2019-10-23 19:09           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 19:21             ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 21:16               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 21:25                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 22:41                   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 23:01                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23 23:27                       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 20:05             ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-24  0:23               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-23 20:15             ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-24  9:02             ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-24 15:10               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-10-25 20:12                 ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-22 21:27         ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-23  4:11         ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-23  7:29           ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2019-10-23 12:43             ` Mike Rapoport
2019-10-23 17:13               ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] Teach SELinux about a new userfaultfd class Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:08   ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-13  0:11     ` Daniel Colascione
2019-10-13  0:46       ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 5/7] Let userfaultfd opt out of handling kernel-mode faults Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 6/7] Allow users to require UFFD_SECURE Daniel Colascione
2019-10-12 23:12   ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-12 19:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] Add a new sysctl for limiting userfaultfd to user mode faults Daniel Colascione
2019-10-16  0:02 ` [PATCH 0/7] Harden userfaultfd James Morris

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20191023072920.GF12121@uranus.lan \
    --to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=avagin@gmail.com \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lokeshgidra@google.com \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=nnk@google.com \
    --cc=nosh@google.com \
    --cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rstoyanov1@gmail.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xemul@virtuozzo.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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git