linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3]

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]

Message-ID: <9536.1187016680@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:51:20 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org,
	steved@...hat.com, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
	nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Permit filesystem local caching [try #3]

Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:

> I haven't looked into the issues at all and I bet there are plenty,
> maybe in audit and places outside of the security realm, but this
> looks like a clean approach from the LSM interface standpoint. Do
> you want the entire task or just task->security?

It would probably have to be the task struct, lest the security information
(for which I've no refcount held) went away whilst I was trying to access it.

> I could see it either way, but I suspect the task is your best bet. If you
> call security_act_as() twice, then security_act_as_self() do you pop a
> stack, or return to the initial state?

Good point.  I've pondered that.  What I have at the moment partly acts like a
stack in that I store some of the shifted-out context on the machine stack (in
struct cachefiles_secctx).  The act-as context should probably be shifted too,
in addition to the old file-creation SID and the fsuid/fsgid.

> How about security_act_as(NULL) returning you to the initial state, and
> dropping security_act_as_self()?

That would be fine.

Actually, to address Stephen Smalley's requirements also, how about making
things a bit more complex.  Have the following suite of functions:

 (1) int security_get_context(struct sec **_context);

	This allocates and gives the caller a blob that describes the current
	context of all the LSM module states attached to the current task and
	stores a pointer to it in *_context.

 (2) int security_push(struct sec *context, struct sec **_old_context)

	This causes all the LSM modules on the current task to switch to a new
	acting state, passing back the old state.  It does not change how
	other tasks do things to this one.

 (3) int security_pop(struct sec *context)

	This causes all the LSM modules on the current task to switch to a new
	acting state, deleting the old state.  It does not change how
	other tasks do things to this one.

 (4) int security_delete_context(struct sec *context)

	This deletes a context blob.

The context blob could then be structured very simply.  Give each loaded LSM
module an integer index as it is registered.  Having a limit to the number of
LSM modules would make things simpler.  The blob would then be an array of
void pointers, one per LSM module, indexed by the integer index for each one.
It you don't have a limit on the number of LSM modules, you'd also need a
count of slots in the blob.

Any LSM module that wanted to implement the above three functions would fill
in or otherwise use the slot that belongs to it.  Otherwise the slot would
just be left NULL.

For example:

	context --->+--------+                                    +---------+
	            | SLOT 0 |----------------------------------->| SELINUX |
	            +--------+                      +--------+    +---------+
	            | SLOT 1 |--------------------->| THINGY |
	            +--------+                      +--------+
	            | ...    |
	            +--------+         +-------+
	            | SLOT N |-------->| AUDIT |
	            +--------+         +-------+

For Stephen and NFS, he could then generate a context from NFS which nfsd
could then put in place.  Perhaps any unfilled slot would be ignored by the
LSM module to which it belonged.

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/