linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v24 02/12] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management

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: <CAG48ez2RE6S7jKQY3iyoNRM5vV67W4S7OwJ0gmNGy+MB8F56vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 08:00:00 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 02/12] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:51 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> A Landlock ruleset is mainly a red-black tree with Landlock rules as
> nodes.  This enables quick update and lookup to match a requested
> access, e.g. to a file.  A ruleset is usable through a dedicated file
> descriptor (cf. following commit implementing syscalls) which enables a
> process to create and populate a ruleset with new rules.
>
> A domain is a ruleset tied to a set of processes.  This group of rules
> defines the security policy enforced on these processes and their future
> children.  A domain can transition to a new domain which is the
> intersection of all its constraints and those of a ruleset provided by
> the current process.  This modification only impact the current process.
> This means that a process can only gain more constraints (i.e. lose
> accesses) over time.
>
> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---
>
> Changes since v23:
> * Always intersect access rights.  Following the filesystem change
>   logic, make ruleset updates more consistent by always intersecting
>   access rights (boolean AND) instead of combining them (boolean OR) for
>   the same layer.

This seems wrong to me. If some software e.g. builds a policy that
allows it to execute specific libraries and to open input files
specified on the command line, and the user then specifies a library
as an input file, this change will make that fail unless the software
explicitly deduplicates the rules.
Userspace will be forced to add extra complexity to work around this.

>   This defensive approach could also help avoid user
>   space to inadvertently allow multiple access rights for the same
>   object (e.g.  write and execute access on a path hierarchy) instead of
>   dealing with such inconsistency.  This can happen when there is no
>   deduplication of objects (e.g. paths and underlying inodes) whereas
>   they get different access rights with landlock_add_rule(2).

I don't see why that's an issue. If userspace wants to be able to
access the same object in different ways for different purposes, it
should be able to do that, no?

I liked the semantics from the previous version.