linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 08/20] evm: evm_inode_post

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: <1307077592.3124.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:06:32 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.s.kasatkin@...il.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>,
	Tiger Yang <tiger.yang@...cle.com>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/20] evm: evm_inode_post_init

On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 12:21 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:23:31AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Initialize 'security.evm' for new files. Reduce number of arguments
> > by defining 'struct xattr'.
> 
> why does this need a new security callout from every filesystem?
> Once the security xattr is initialised, the name, len and value is
> not going to change so surely the evm xattr can be initialised at
> the same time the lsm xattr is initialised.

Steve Whitehouse asked a similar question, suggesting that
security_inode_init_security() return a vector of xattrs to minimize the
number of xattr writes.  Casey pointed out the "stacking" of LSMs will
result in multiple calls to security_inode_init_security(), once for
each LSM. The conclusion (http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/19/125) was:

Moving evm_inode_init_security() into security_inode_init_security()
only works for the single LSM and EVM case, but not for the multiple
LSMs and EVM case, as the 'stacker' would call each LSM's
security_inode_iint_security().  Having the 'stacker' return an array of
xattrs would make sense and, at the same time, resolve the EVM issue. In
evm_inode_post_init_security(), EVM could then walk the list of xattrs.

> Then all you need to do in each filesystem is add the evm_xattr
> structure to the existing security init call and a:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_EVM
> 	/* set evm.xattr */
> #endif
> 
> to avoid adding code that is never executed when EVM is not
> configured into the kernel.
> 
> That way you don't create the lsm_xattr at all if the evm_xattr is
> not created, and then the file creation should fail in an atomic
> manner, right?  i.e. you don't leave files with unverified security
> attributes around when interesting failure corner cases occur (e.g.
> ENOSPC).

That would imply EVM must be enabled for all LSMs that define a security
xattr.  That's definitely a good goal, but probably not a good idea for
right now.

> And while you are there, it's probably also be a good idea to add
> support for all filesystems that support xattrs, not just a random
> subset of them...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.

The EVM xattr is initialized based on the LSM xattr.  At this point, as
far as I'm aware, the only remaining filesystems that call
security_inode_init_security() to initialize the LSM xattr, are ocfs2
and reiserfs.  Both of which might have memory leaks.  Tiger Yang is
addressing the memory leak for ocfs2.

thanks,

Mimi

--
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/