linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Reorder security_capset to do access checks properly

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:45:22 -0700
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Reorder security_capset to do access checks properly

On 6/1/2016 1:38 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 04:30 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 6/1/2016 1:06 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2016 03:27 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] LSM: Reorder security_capset to do access checks properly
>>>>
>>>> The security module hooks that check whether a process should
>>>> be able to set a new capset are currently called after the new
>>>> values are set in cap_capset(). This change reverses the order.
>>>> The capability module no longer adds cap_capset to the module list.
>>>> Instead, it is invoked directly by the LSM infrastructure.
>>>> This isn't an approach that generalizes well.
>>> Is this change necessary?  The fact that cap_capset() modifies new
>>> before the other hooks are called does no harm, because if any hook
>>> returns an error, then the caller returns that error and never commits
>>> the new cred.  It is actually possibly beneficial for the other security
>>> hooks to be called after cap_capset() so that they can adjust the new
>>> values if desired (e.g. to reduce them) before they are finally committed.
>> The existing code will set the new credential values before the
>> security modules do their checks. Even if it's harmless, it's sloppy.
>> Currently there's only one caller, but with Serge's work on ns_capabilities
>> I'm looking to make this safer.
> It's intentional.  cap_capset() does two things: it validates the
> proposed capability sets (a permission check, returning -EPERM on
> failure) and if valid under its own logic, it then updates new.  But the
> update does not take effect until the caller of security_capset() calls
> commit_creds() and that only happens if all of the hooks pass.  By
> moving cap_capset() to the end, you are reversing the order of checks
> from the norm (DAC before MAC) and you aren't allowing other security
> modules to vet and possibly reduce new further.  Also, it is obvious
> from the patch below that doing so requires a massive hack to what was
> otherwise working fine for stacking.
>
> If you are going to insist on reversing the order, then I think you need
> to split security_capset into two hooks, one which only validates and
> one which sets, and only use your alternative ordering for the latter.
> But that's a lot of work for no apparent gain...

Point. I'll drop this. We'll worry about it if it ever actually
becomes an issue. Thanks for the comments.


>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  security/commoncap.c |  2 +-
>>>>  security/security.c  | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
>>>> index 48071ed..f5bce18 100644
>>>> --- a/security/commoncap.c
>>>> +++ b/security/commoncap.c
>>>> @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ struct security_hook_list capability_hooks[] = {
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(ptrace_access_check, cap_ptrace_access_check),
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(ptrace_traceme, cap_ptrace_traceme),
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(capget, cap_capget),
>>>> -	LSM_HOOK_INIT(capset, cap_capset),
>>>> +	/* Carefull! Do not include cap_capset! */
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_set_creds, cap_bprm_set_creds),
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_secureexec, cap_bprm_secureexec),
>>>>  	LSM_HOOK_INIT(inode_need_killpriv, cap_inode_need_killpriv),
>>>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>>>> index 92cd1d8..1610be8 100644
>>>> --- a/security/security.c
>>>> +++ b/security/security.c
>>>> @@ -177,8 +177,28 @@ int security_capset(struct cred *new, const struct cred *old,
>>>>  		    const kernel_cap_t *inheritable,
>>>>  		    const kernel_cap_t *permitted)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	return call_int_hook(capset, 0, new, old,
>>>> -				effective, inheritable, permitted);
>>>> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
>>>> +	int rc;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Special case handling because the "new" capabilities
>>>> +	 * should not be set until it has been determined that
>>>> +	 * all modules approve of the change. Passing NULL pointers
>>>> +	 * to all modules except the capabilty module as it is
>>>> +	 * expected that only the capability modules needs the
>>>> +	 * result pointers.
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * cap_capset() must not be in the capability module hook list!
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.capset, list) {
>>>> +		rc = hp->hook.capset(new, old, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> +		if (rc != 0)
>>>> +			return rc;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Call cap_capset now to update the new capset.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	return cap_capset(new, old, effective, inheritable, permitted);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  int security_capable(const struct cred *cred, struct user_namespace *ns,
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Selinux mailing list
>>>> Selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@...ho.nsa.gov.
>>>> To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@...ho.nsa.gov.
>>>>
>