From: Paul Moore <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Stephen Smalley <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] security,anon_inodes,kvm: enable security support for anon inodes Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:14:24 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSsjrgu2Jn+yiV5Bz_wt2x5bgEXdhjqLA+duWYNo4gOtw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Stephen Smalley <email@example.com> wrote: > > Add support for labeling and controlling access to files attached to anon > inodes. Introduce extended interfaces for creating such files to permit > passing a related file as an input to decide how to label the anon > inode. Define a security hook for initializing the anon inode security > attributes. Security attributes are either inherited from a related file > or determined based on some combination of the creating task and policy > (in the case of SELinux, using type_transition rules). As an > example user of the inheritance support, convert kvm to use the new > interface for passing the related file so that the anon inode can inherit > the security attributes of /dev/kvm and provide consistent access control > for subsequent ioctl operations. Other users of anon inodes, including > userfaultfd, will default to the transition-based mechanism instead. > > Compared to the series in > https://firstname.lastname@example.org/, > this approach differs in that it does not require creation of a separate > anonymous inode for each file (instead storing the per-instance security > information in the file security blob), it applies labeling and control > to all users of anonymous inodes rather than requiring opt-in via a new > flag, it supports labeling based on a related inode if provided, > it relies on type transitions to compute the label of the anon inode > when there is no related inode, and it does not require introducing a new > security class for each user of anonymous inodes. > > On the other hand, the approach in this patch does expose the name passed > by the creator of the anon inode to the policy (an indirect mapping could > be provided within SELinux if these names aren't considered to be stable), > requires the definition of type_transition rules to distinguish userfaultfd > inodes from proc inodes based on type since they share the same class, > doesn't support denying the creation of anonymous inodes (making the hook > added by this patch return something other than void is problematic due to > it being called after the file is already allocated and error handling in > the callers can't presently account for this scenario and end up calling > release methods multiple times), and may be more expensive > (security_transition_sid overhead on each anon inode allocation). > > We are primarily posting this RFC patch now so that the two different > approaches can be concretely compared. We anticipate a hybrid of the > two approaches being the likely outcome in the end. In particular > if support for allocating a separate inode for each of these files > is acceptable, then we would favor storing the security information > in the inode security blob and using it instead of the file security > blob. Bringing this back up in hopes of attracting some attention from the fs-devel crowd and Al. As Stephen already mentioned, from a SELinux perspective we would prefer to attach the security blob to the inode as opposed to the file struct; does anyone have any objections to that? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-18 0:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-13 19:41 Stephen Smalley 2020-02-13 19:47 ` Stephen Smalley 2020-02-18 0:14 ` Paul Moore [this message] 2020-02-20 18:11 ` Casey Schaufler 2020-02-20 18:50 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-10 18:09 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-10 18:26 ` Stephen Smalley 2020-03-10 21:50 ` Daniel Colascione 2020-03-11 13:31 ` Stephen Smalley
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=CAHC9VhSsjrgu2Jn+yiV5Bz_wt2x5bgEXdhjqLA+duWYNo4gOtw@mail.gmail.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH] security,anon_inodes,kvm: enable security support for anon inodes' \ /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
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).