Message-ID: <4ba95bc2071185a7819261c4e008ec9aa452b30e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:38:28 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Philippe Trébuchet 
        <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
        Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>,
        Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org>,
        Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 1/3] fs: Introduce AT_INTERPRETED flag for
 faccessat2(2)

[Cc'ing Casey]

On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 16:14 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 08/09/2020 15:42, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 9:29 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 08:52 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smalley
> >>> <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:43 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 08/09/2020 14:28, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Mickael,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 09:59 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>>>>>> +                    mode |= MAY_INTERPRETED_EXEC;
> >>>>>>> +                    /*
> >>>>>>> +                     * For compatibility reasons, if the system-wide policy
> >>>>>>> +                     * doesn't enforce file permission checks, then
> >>>>>>> +                     * replaces the execute permission request with a read
> >>>>>>> +                     * permission request.
> >>>>>>> +                     */
> >>>>>>> +                    mode &= ~MAY_EXEC;
> >>>>>>> +                    /* To be executed *by* user space, files must be readable. */
> >>>>>>> +                    mode |= MAY_READ;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After this change, I'm wondering if it makes sense to add a call to
> >>>>>> security_file_permission().  IMA doesn't currently define it, but
> >>>>>> could.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that's the idea. We could replace the following inode_permission()
> >>>>> with file_permission(). I'm not sure how this will impact other LSMs though.
> >>
> >> I wasn't suggesting replacing the existing security_inode_permission
> >> hook later, but adding a new security_file_permission hook here.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> They are not equivalent at least as far as SELinux is concerned.
> >>>> security_file_permission() was only to be used to revalidate
> >>>> read/write permissions previously checked at file open to support
> >>>> policy changes and file or process label changes.  We'd have to modify
> >>>> the SELinux hook if we wanted to have it check execute access even if
> >>>> nothing has changed since open time.
> >>>
> >>> Also Smack doesn't appear to implement file_permission at all, so it
> >>> would skip Smack checking.
> >>
> >> My question is whether adding a new security_file_permission call here
> >> would break either SELinux or Apparmor?
> > 
> > selinux_inode_permission() has special handling for MAY_ACCESS so we'd
> > need to duplicate that into selinux_file_permission() ->
> > selinux_revalidate_file_permission().  Also likely need to adjust
> > selinux_file_permission() to explicitly check whether the mask
> > includes any permissions not checked at open time.  So some changes
> > would be needed here.  By default, it would be a no-op unless there
> > was a policy reload or the file was relabeled between the open(2) and
> > the faccessat(2) call.
> > 
> 
> We could create a new hook path_permission(struct path *path, int mask)
> as a superset of inode_permission(). To be more convenient, his new hook
> could then just call inode_permission() for every LSMs not implementing
> path_permission().

The LSM maintainers need to chime in here on this suggestion.  In terms
of the name, except for one hook, all the security_path_XXXX() hooks
are dependent on CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH being configured.

Mimi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists