Message-ID: <20151001144137.GC101875@ubuntu-hedt>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 09:41:37 -0500
From:	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fs: Verify access of user towards block device file
 when mounting

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:40:52AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01 2015 at  8:55am -0400,
> Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 07:42:15PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30 2015 at  4:15pm -0400,
> > > Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > When mounting a filesystem on a block device there is currently
> > > > no verification that the user has appropriate access to the
> > > > device file passed to mount. This has not been an issue so far
> > > > since the user in question has always been root, but this must
> > > > be changed before allowing unprivileged users to mount in user
> > > > namespaces.
> > > > 
> > > > To fix this, add an argument to lookup_bdev() to specify the
> > > > required permissions. If the mask of permissions is zero, or
> > > > if the user has CAP_SYS_ADMIN, the permission check is skipped,
> > > > otherwise the lookup fails if the user does not have the
> > > > specified access rights for the inode at the supplied path.
> > > > 
> > > > Callers associated with mounting are updated to pass permission
> > > > masks to lookup_bdev() so that these mounts will fail for an
> > > > unprivileged user who lacks permissions for the block device
> > > > inode. All other callers pass 0 to maintain their current
> > > > behaviors.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/md/bcache/super.c |  2 +-
> > > >  drivers/md/dm-table.c     |  2 +-
> > > >  drivers/mtd/mtdsuper.c    |  6 +++++-
> > > >  fs/block_dev.c            | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > > >  fs/quota/quota.c          |  2 +-
> > > >  include/linux/fs.h        |  2 +-
> > > >  6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > > > index e76ed003769e..35bb3ea4cbe2 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > > > @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ int dm_get_device(struct dm_target *ti, const char *path, fmode_t mode,
> > > >  	BUG_ON(!t);
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* convert the path to a device */
> > > > -	bdev = lookup_bdev(path);
> > > > +	bdev = lookup_bdev(path, 0);
> > > >  	if (IS_ERR(bdev)) {
> > > >  		dev = name_to_dev_t(path);
> > > >  		if (!dev)
> > > 
> > > Given dm_get_device() is passed @mode why not have it do something like
> > > you did in blkdev_get_by_path()? e.g.:
> > 
> > I only dealt with code related to mounting in this patch since that's
> > what I'm working on. I have it on my TODO list to consider converting
> > other callers of lookup_bdev. But if you're sure doing so makes sense
> > for dm_get_device and that it won't cause regressions then I could add a
> > patch for it.
> 
> OK, dm_get_device() is called in DM device activation path (by tools
> like lvm2).
> 
> After lookup_bdev() it goes on to call blkdev_get_by_dev() with this
> call chain: 
>   dm_get_device -> dm_get_table_device -> open_table_device -> blkdev_get_by_dev
> 
> Not immediately clear to me why we'd need to augment blkdev_get_by_dev()
> to do this checking also.
> 
> However, thinking further: In a device stack (e.g. dm/lvm2, md, etc)
> new virtual block devices are created that layer ontop of the
> traditional block devices.  This level of indirection may cause your
> lookup_bdev() check to go on to succeed (if access constraints were not
> established on the upper level dm or md device?).  I'm just thinking
> outloud here: but have you verified your changes work as intended on
> devices created with either lvm2 or mdadm?
> 
> What layer establishes access rights to historically root-only
> priviledged block devices?  Is it user namespaces?

I'm going to start with this last question and work my way backwards.

Who determines access rights to the block devices varies to some degree.
Any normal user could unshare the user/mount namespaces and still see
all the block devices in /dev. If we're going to allow that user to then
mount block devices in their private namespaces, the kernel must verify
that the user has appropriate permissions for the block device inode.
That's the point of this patch. In a container context the host process
which sets up the container might share some block devices into the
container via bind mounts, in which case it would be responsible for
setting up access rights (both via inode permissions and potentially via
devcgroups). I also have some patches I'm working on for a loop psuedo
filesystem which would allow a container to allocate loop devices for
its own use (via the loop-control device), in which case the kernel
creates a device node in the loopfs filesystem from which the new loop
device was allocated, owned by the root user in the user namespace
associated with the loopfs superblock.

Obviously a DM block device is more complicated than a traditional block
device. This patch should ensure that if an unprivileged user tries to
mount a DM blkdev that it fails if the user lacks permissions for the DM
blkdev inode. There's also the blkdevs behind the DM blkdev, and I'm not
sure whether we need to additionally verify that the user has access to
those devices. Maybe it's enough that someone with access to them set up
the DM device, and someone with sufficient privileges gave that user
access to the DM device. Do you have any thoughts?

As for activating a DM device, I assume only root is permitted to do
this. In that case lookup_bdev will skip the inode permission check
even if a non-zero permission mask is passed.

> I haven't kept up with user namespaces as it relates to stacking block
> drivers like DM.  But I'm happy to come up to speed and at the same time
> help you verify all works as expected with DM blocks devices...

That's great, I really appreciate it.

Seth
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists