Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:27:50 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 06/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks


On 30/08/2016 22:18, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/08/2016 20:56, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 2016 12:34 PM, "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add LSM hooks which can be used by userland through Landlock (eBPF)
>>>> programs. This programs are limited to a whitelist of functions (cf.
>>>> next commit). The eBPF program context is depicted by the struct
>>>> landlock_data (cf. include/uapi/linux/bpf.h):
>>>> * hook: LSM hook ID (useful when using the same program for multiple LSM
>>>>   hooks);
>>>> * cookie: the 16-bit value from the seccomp filter that triggered this
>>>>   Landlock program;
>>>> * args[6]: array of LSM hook arguments.
>>>>
>>>> The LSM hook arguments can contain raw values as integers or
>>>> (unleakable) pointers. The only way to use the pointers are to pass them
>>>> to an eBPF function according to their types (e.g. the
>>>> bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_beneath_with_struct_file function can use a struct
>>>> file pointer).
>>>>
>>>> For now, there is three hooks for file system access control:
>>>> * file_open;
>>>> * file_permission;
>>>> * mmap_file.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's the purpose of exposing struct cred * to userspace?  It's
>>> primarily just an optimization to save a bit of RAM, and it's a
>>> dubious optimization at that.  What are you using it for?  Would it
>>> make more sense to use struct task_struct * or struct pid * instead?
>>>
>>> Also, exposing struct cred * has a really weird side-effect: it allows
>>> (maybe even encourages) checking for pointer equality between two
>>> struct cred * objects.  Doing so will have erratic results.
>>>
>>
>> The pointers exposed in the ePBF context are not directly readable by an
>> unprivileged eBPF program thanks to the strong typing of the Landlock
>> context and the static eBPF verification. There is no way to leak a
>> kernel pointer to userspace from an unprivileged eBPF program: pointer
>> arithmetic and comparison are prohibited. Pointers can only be pass as
>> argument to dedicated eBPF functions.
> 
> I'm not talking about leaking the value -- I'm talking about leaking
> the predicate (a == b) for two struct cred pointers.  That predicate
> shouldn't be available because it has very odd effects.

I'm pretty sure this case is covered with the impossibility of doing
pointers comparison.

> 
>>
>> For now, struct cred * is simply not used by any eBPF function and then
>> not usable at all. It only exist here because I map the LSM hook
>> arguments in a generic/automatic way to the eBPF context.
> 
> Maybe remove it from this patch set then?

Well, this is done with the LANDLOCK_HOOK* macros but I will remove it.



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists