From: William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com>
To: Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl>
Cc: Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Always allow FIOCLEX and FIONCLEX
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:17:25 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFftDdo9JmbyPzPWRjOYgZBOS9b5d+OGKKf8egS8_ysbbWW87Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875ypt5zmz.fsf@defensec.nl>
<snip>
This is getting too long for me.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion either way. If one were to allow this
> > using a policy rule, it would result in a major policy breakage. The
> > rule would turn on extended perm checks across the entire system,
> > which the SELinux Reference Policy isn't written for. I can't speak
> > to the Android policy, but I would imagine it would be the similar
> > problem there too.
>
> Excuse me if I am wrong but AFAIK adding a xperm rule does not turn on
> xperm checks across the entire system.
It doesn't as you state below its target + class.
>
> If i am not mistaken it will turn on xperm checks only for the
> operations that have the same source and target/target class.
That's correct.
>
> This is also why i don't (with the exception TIOSCTI for termdev
> chr_file) use xperms by default.
>
> 1. it is really easy to selectively filter ioctls by adding xperm rules
> for end users (and since ioctls are often device/driver specific they
> know best what is needed and what not)
> >>> and FIONCLEX can be trivially bypassed unless fcntl(F_SETFD)
>
> 2. if you filter ioctls in upstream policy for example like i do with
> TIOSCTI using for example (allowx foo bar (ioctl chr_file (not
> (0xXXXX)))) then you cannot easily exclude additional ioctls later where source is
> foo and target/tclass is bar/chr_file because there is already a rule in
> place allowing the ioctl (and you cannot add rules)
Currently, fcntl flag F_SETFD is never checked, it's silently allowed, but
the equivalent FIONCLEX and FIOCLEX are checked. So if you wrote policy
to block the FIO*CLEX flags, it would be bypassable through F_SETFD and
FD_CLOEXEC. So the patch proposed makes the FIO flags behave like
F_SETFD. Which means upstream policy users could drop this allow, which
could then remove the target/class rule and allow all icotls. Which is easy
to prevent and fix you could be a rule in to allowx 0 as documented in the
wiki: https://selinuxproject.org/page/XpermRules
The questions I think we have here are:
1. Do we agree that the behavior between SETFD and the FIO flags are equivalent?
I think they are.
2. Do we want the interfaces to behave the same?
I think they should.
3. Do upstream users of the policy construct care?
The patch is backwards compat, but I don't want their to be cruft
floating around with extra allowxperm rules.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-08 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-25 21:34 [PATCH] SELinux: Always allow FIOCLEX and FIONCLEX Demi Marie Obenour
2022-01-25 22:27 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-25 22:50 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-01-26 22:41 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-30 3:40 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-01 17:26 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-02 10:13 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-03 23:44 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-04 13:48 ` Chris PeBenito
2022-02-05 11:19 ` Dominick Grift
2022-02-05 13:13 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-08 14:17 ` William Roberts [this message]
2022-02-08 15:47 ` Chris PeBenito
2022-02-08 16:47 ` Dominick Grift
2022-02-08 23:44 ` David Laight
2022-02-14 7:11 ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2022-02-15 20:34 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-17 15:04 ` Christian Göttsche
2022-02-17 22:25 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-17 23:55 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-18 15:06 ` Richard Haines
2022-02-18 15:39 ` Richard Haines
2022-02-20 1:15 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-07 17:00 ` William Roberts
2022-02-07 17:08 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-07 18:35 ` William Roberts
2022-02-07 21:12 ` Demi Marie Obenour
2022-02-07 21:42 ` William Roberts
2022-02-07 21:50 ` William Roberts
2022-02-08 0:01 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-08 14:05 ` William Roberts
2022-02-08 16:26 ` Paul Moore
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=CAFftDdo9JmbyPzPWRjOYgZBOS9b5d+OGKKf8egS8_ysbbWW87Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bill.c.roberts@gmail.com \
--cc=chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=demiobenour@gmail.com \
--cc=dominick.grift@defensec.nl \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.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).