[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211115192626.GA25294@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 13:26:26 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Alistair Delva <adelva@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...gle.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, john.johansen@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: Check ADMIN before NICE for IOPRIO_CLASS_RT
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 06:16:55PM +0000, Alistair Delva wrote:
> Booting to Android userspace on 5.14 or newer triggers the following
> SELinux denial:
>
> avc: denied { sys_nice } for comm="init" capability=23
> scontext=u:r:init:s0 tcontext=u:r:init:s0 tclass=capability
> permissive=0
>
> Init is PID 0 running as root, so it already has CAP_SYS_ADMIN. For
> better compatibility with older SEPolicy, check ADMIN before NICE.
>
> Fixes: 9d3a39a5f1e4 ("block: grant IOPRIO_CLASS_RT to CAP_SYS_NICE")
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Delva <adelva@...gle.com>
> Cc: Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...gle.com>
> Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
This won't harm anything, so
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
but questions below.
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
> Cc: selinux@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v5.14+
> ---
> v2: added comment requested by Jens
> block/ioprio.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/ioprio.c b/block/ioprio.c
> index 0e4ff245f2bf..313c14a70bbd 100644
> --- a/block/ioprio.c
> +++ b/block/ioprio.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,14 @@ int ioprio_check_cap(int ioprio)
>
> switch (class) {
> case IOPRIO_CLASS_RT:
> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + /*
> + * Originally this only checked for CAP_SYS_ADMIN,
> + * which was implicitly allowed for pid 0 by security
What do you mean, implicitly allowed for pid 0? Can you point to where
that happens?
> + * modules such as SELinux. Make sure we check
> + * CAP_SYS_ADMIN first to avoid a denial/avc for
> + * possibly missing CAP_SYS_NICE permission.
> + */
> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE))
> return -EPERM;
But whichever one comes first can cause an avc denial message. It seems
like we need a new capable() primitive which supports multiple bits,
when more than one can authorize an action, and which emits an audit
message only if all bits are missing.
> fallthrough;
> /* rt has prio field too */
> --
> 2.34.0.rc1.387.gb447b232ab-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists