linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 20/20] ima: Setup securityfs

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: <9631d4b3-15f6-46f1-6441-98c1192be6b4@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 15:25:21 -0500
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     jejb@...ux.ibm.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     zohar@...ux.ibm.com, serge@...lyn.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
        mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
        puiterwi@...hat.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 20/20] ima: Setup securityfs_ns for IMA namespace


On 12/1/21 14:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 13:11 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 12:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
>> I tried this with runc and a user namespace active mapping uid 1000
>> on the host to uid 0 in the container. There I run into the problem
>> that  all of the files and directories without the above work-around
>> are mapped to 'nobody', just like all the files in sysfs in this case
>> are also mapped to nobody. This code resolved the issue.
> So I applied your patches with the permission shift commented out and
> instrumented inode_alloc() to see where it might be failing and I
> actually find it all works as expected for me:
>
> ejb@...tdeb:~> unshare -r --user --mount --ima
> root@...tdeb:~# mount -t securityfs_ns none /sys/kernel/security
> root@...tdeb:~# ls -l /sys/kernel/security/ima/
> total 0
> -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Dec  1 19:11 ascii_runtime_measurements
> -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Dec  1 19:11 binary_runtime_measurements
> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Dec  1 19:11 policy
> -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Dec  1 19:11 runtime_measurements_count
> -r--r----- 1 root root 0 Dec  1 19:11 violations
>
> I think your problem is something to do with how runc is installing the
> uid/gid mappings.  If it's installing them after the security_ns inodes
> are created then they get the -1 value (because no mappings exist in
> s_user_ns).  I can even demonstrate this by forcing unshare to enter
> the IMA namespace before writing the mapping values and I'll see
> "nobody nogroup" above like you do.

I am surprised you get this mapping even after commenting the permission 
adjustments... it doesn't work for me when I comment them out:

[stefanb@...-ns-dev rootfs]$ unshare -r --user --mount
[root@...-ns-dev rootfs]# mount -t securityfs_ns none /sys/kernel/security/
[root@...-ns-dev rootfs]# cd /sys/kernel/security/ima/
[root@...-ns-dev ima]# ls -l
total 0
-r--r-----. 1 nobody nobody 0 Dec  1 15:20 ascii_runtime_measurements
-r--r-----. 1 nobody nobody 0 Dec  1 15:20 binary_runtime_measurements
-rw-------. 1 nobody nobody 0 Dec  1 15:20 policy
-r--r-----. 1 nobody nobody 0 Dec  1 15:20 runtime_measurements_count
-r--r-----. 1 nobody nobody 0 Dec  1 15:20 violations
[root@...-ns-dev ima]# cat /proc/self/uid_map
          0       1000          1
[root@...-ns-dev ima]# cat /proc/self/gid_map
          0       1000          1

The initialization of securityfs and setup of files and directories 
happens at the same time as the IMA namespace is created. At this time 
there are no user mappings available, so that's why I need to make the 
adjustments 'late'.

    Stefan