netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:35:56 -0700
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Rongqing Li <rongqing.li@...driver.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk_getsecid.

On 8/9/2011 6:24 PM, Rongqing Li wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 08:57 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 8/9/2011 5:43 PM, Rongqing Li wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2011 12:13 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2011 12:28 AM, rongqing.li@...driver.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@...driver.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Define security_sk_getsecid to get the security id of a sock.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you requesting the secid when you're just going to
>>>> use it to get the secctx? Why not ask for that directly?
>>>> Is there ever a case where you only want the secid?
>>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> As I know, we have not method to get secctx directly.
>>
>> You are defining the method! Ask for what you want!
>>
>> The whole notion of secids is a holdover from the bad old
>> days when SELinux was a user space based enforcement mechanism.
>> The audit system was implemented when SELinux was the lone LSM
>> and unfortunately and unnecessarily propagated the use of secids.
>> If an object has a secid it must also have a secctx. The
>> interfaces that use secids could just as well use the secctx.
>> It is wasteful to create a new interface that fetches a secid
>> just to turn around and ask for the secctx in all cases.
>>
>
> Do you means I should write a method like below
> security_sk_getsecctx(struct sock *sk, char *secctx, int *len)?

Yes. That is exactly what you should do.

>
> But secctx only is used to user.

But all you're doing is printing out the secctx. The only
thing you are doing with the secid is converting it to a
secctx.

> secid is used to source code to
> compute and compare the access permission.

That will depend on the LSM involved. You are making a change to
the LSM, not just SELinux.

>
> And I do not see the same method like
> security_task_getsecctx(). but security_task_getsecid() has been
> implemented in kernel source code.

Have a look at how those interfaces are used.


>
> -Roy
>
>
>>> On the most of time, we get secctx like this.
>>>
>>> The below comes from kernel/auditsc.c
>>>
>>> void audit_log_task_context(struct audit_buffer *ab)
>>> {
>>>          char *ctx = NULL;
>>>          unsigned len;
>>>          int error;
>>>          u32 sid;
>>>
>>>          security_task_getsecid(current,&sid);
>>>          if (!sid)
>>>                  return;
>>>
>>>          error = security_secid_to_secctx(sid,&ctx,&len);
>>>          if (error) {
>>>                  if (error != -EINVAL)
>>>                          goto error_path;
>>>                  return;
>>>          }
>>>
>>>          audit_log_format(ab, " subj=%s", ctx);
>>>          security_release_secctx(ctx, len);
>>>          return;
>>>
>>> error_path:
>>>          audit_panic("error in audit_log_task_context");
>>>          return;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> -Roy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@...driver.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    include/linux/security.h |    6 ++++++
>>>>>    security/security.c      |    6 ++++++
>>>>>    2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
>>>>> index ebd2a53..739ac39 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>>>>> @@ -2560,6 +2560,7 @@ int security_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t priority);
>>>>>    void security_sk_free(struct sock *sk);
>>>>>    void security_sk_clone(const struct sock *sk, struct sock *newsk);
>>>>>    void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl);
>>>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid);
>>>>>    void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl);
>>>>>    void security_sock_graft(struct sock*sk, struct socket *parent);
>>>>>    int security_inet_conn_request(struct sock *sk,
>>>>> @@ -2701,6 +2702,11 @@ static inline void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    *secid = 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>    static inline void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>    }
>>>>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>>>>> index 0e4fccf..b0e0825 100644
>>>>> --- a/security/security.c
>>>>> +++ b/security/security.c
>>>>> @@ -1104,6 +1104,12 @@ void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>>    }
>>>>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_classify_flow);
>>>>>
>>>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    security_ops->sk_getsecid(sk, secid);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_getsecid);
>>>>> +
>>>>>    void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>        security_ops->req_classify_flow(req, fl);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html