linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 05/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to filesystem

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: <20170824025030.sxl2hkpcbzipb47y@ast-mbp>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:50:32 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 05/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to
 filesystem

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:09:28AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Handle 33 filesystem-related LSM hooks for the Landlock filesystem
> event: LANDLOCK_SUBTYPE_EVENT_FS.
> 
> A Landlock event wrap LSM hooks for similar kernel object types (e.g.
> struct file, struct path...). Multiple LSM hooks can trigger the same
> Landlock event.
> 
> Landlock handle nine coarse-grained actions: read, write, execute, new,
> get, remove, ioctl, lock and fcntl. Each of them abstract LSM hook
> access control in a way that can be extended in the future.
> 
> The Landlock LSM hook registration is done after other LSM to only run
> actions from user-space, via eBPF programs, if the access was granted by
> major (privileged) LSMs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>

...

> +/* WRAP_ARG_SB */
> +#define WRAP_ARG_SB_TYPE	WRAP_TYPE_FS
> +#define WRAP_ARG_SB_DEC(arg)					\
> +	EXPAND_C(WRAP_TYPE_FS) wrap_##arg =			\
> +	{ .type = BPF_HANDLE_FS_TYPE_DENTRY, .dentry = arg->s_root };
> +#define WRAP_ARG_SB_VAL(arg)	((uintptr_t)&wrap_##arg)
> +#define WRAP_ARG_SB_OK(arg)	(arg && arg->s_root)
...

> +HOOK_NEW_FS(sb_remount, 2,
> +	struct super_block *, sb,
> +	void *, data,
> +	WRAP_ARG_SB, sb,
> +	WRAP_ARG_RAW, LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_WRITE
> +);

this looks wrong. casting super_block to dentry?

> +/* a directory inode contains only one dentry */
> +HOOK_NEW_FS(inode_create, 3,
> +	struct inode *, dir,
> +	struct dentry *, dentry,
> +	umode_t, mode,
> +	WRAP_ARG_INODE, dir,
> +	WRAP_ARG_RAW, LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_WRITE
> +);

more general question: why you're not wrapping all useful
arguments? Like in the above dentry can be acted upon
by the landlock rule and it's readily available...

The limitation of only 2 args looks odd.
Is it a hard limitation ? how hard to extend?