From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: always allow mounting submounts
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:41:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNsAHnV5RzwtONF0hJRy31qb4c=sajvaEkmEjjky4duEBA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTn9qz77PQ3mboaCsNzK9D8hjYFg9z5sCWr8Yb7W2Pqxg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:09 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If a superblock has the MS_SUBMOUNT flag set, we should always allow
> > mounting it. These mounts are done automatically by the kernel either as
> > part of mounting some parent mount (e.g. debugfs always mounts tracefs
> > under "tracing" for compatibility) or they are mounted automatically as
> > needed on subdirectory accesses (e.g. NFS crossmnt mounts). Since such
> > automounts are either an implicit consequence of the parent mount (which
> > is already checked) or they can happen during regular accesses (where it
> > doesn't make sense to check against the current task's context), the
> > mount permission check should be skipped for them.
> >
> > Without this patch, attempts to access contents of an automounted
> > directory can cause unexpected SELinux denials.
> >
> > In the current kernel tree, the MS_SUBMOUNT flag is set only via
> > vfs_submount(), which is called only from the following places:
> > - AFS, when automounting special "symlinks" referencing other cells
> > - CIFS, when automounting "referrals"
> > - NFS, when automounting subtrees
> > - debugfs, when automounting tracefs
> >
> > In all cases the submounts are meant to be transparent to the user and
> > it makes sense that if mounting the master is allowed, then so should be
> > the automounts. Note that CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability checking is already
> > skipped for (SB_KERNMOUNT|SB_SUBMOUNT) in:
> > - sget_userns() in fs/super.c:
> > if (!(flags & (SB_KERNMOUNT|SB_SUBMOUNT)) &&
> > !(type->fs_flags & FS_USERNS_MOUNT) &&
> > !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
> > - sget() in fs/super.c:
> > /* Ensure the requestor has permissions over the target filesystem */
> > if (!(flags & (SB_KERNMOUNT|SB_SUBMOUNT)) && !ns_capable(user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
> >
> > Verified internally on patched RHEL 7.6 with a reproducer using
> > NFS+httpd and selinux-tesuite.
>
> I think this all sounds reasonable, but please verify this with an
> upstream kernel. Upstream our focus is on the upstream kernel
> (surprise!), downstream RHEL is your responsibility, not ours :)
I tested on RHEL because that's what I can do most conveniently. I
don't have a very good workflow/environment for complex testing on
upstream right now. I don't expect the results to be any different on
the upstream kernel, but I understand your concern. I have been
thinking about some patch testing automation using Fedora Rawhide (I
hope that's close enough to upstream at least :), so I guess it's time
to get scriptin'...
I was hoping to get some independent testing after porting the test to
the selinux-testsuite... (But I get it, the burden of proof is on my
side...)
>
> > Fixes: 93faccbbfa95 ("fs: Better permission checking for submounts")
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > index 7ce683259357..7ce012d9ec51 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > @@ -2934,7 +2934,7 @@ static int selinux_sb_kern_mount(struct super_block *sb, int flags, void *data)
> > return rc;
> >
> > /* Allow all mounts performed by the kernel */
> > - if (flags & MS_KERNMOUNT)
> > + if (flags & (MS_KERNMOUNT | MS_SUBMOUNT))
> > return 0;
> >
> > ad.type = LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY;
>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com
--
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-21 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-16 13:12 [PATCH] selinux: always allow mounting submounts Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-11-19 13:15 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-11-20 22:09 ` Paul Moore
2018-11-21 12:41 ` Ondrej Mosnacek [this message]
2018-11-21 15:38 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-11-26 23:25 ` Paul Moore
2018-11-28 15:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-11-28 16:12 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-11-28 17:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
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='CAFqZXNsAHnV5RzwtONF0hJRy31qb4c=sajvaEkmEjjky4duEBA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.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).