Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:12:08 +0100
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>,
        Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>
Cc:     paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        shuah@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 3/6] landlock: add chmod and chown support


On 29/10/2022 10:33, xiujianfeng wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2022/9/2 1:34, Mickaël Salaün 写道:
>> CCing linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2022 15:06, xiujianfeng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 在 2022/8/30 0:01, Mickaël Salaün 写道:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/08/2022 03:17, xiujianfeng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> 在 2022/8/28 3:30, Günther Noack 写道:
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the mapping between Landlock rights to LSM hooks is now as follows in
>>>>>> your patch set:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_CHMOD controls hook_path_chmod
>>>>>> * LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_CHGRP controls hook_path_chown
>>>>>>       (this hook can restrict both the chown(2) and chgrp(2) syscalls)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this the desired mapping?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The previous discussion I found on the topic was in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5873455f-fff9-618c-25b1-8b6a4ec94368@digikod.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b1d69dfa-6d93-2034-7854-e2bc4017d20e@schaufler-ca.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c369c45d-5aa8-3e39-c7d6-b08b165495fd@digikod.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my understanding the main arguments were the ones in [2] and [3].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no further responses to [3], so I was under the impression
>>>>>> that we were gravitating towards an approach where the
>>>>>> file-metadata-modification operations were grouped more coarsely?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example with the approach suggested in [3], which would be to
>>>>>> group the operations coarsely into (a) one Landlock right for
>>>>>> modifying file metadata that is used in security contexts, and (b) one
>>>>>> Landlock right for modifying metadata that was used in non-security
>>>>>> contexts. That would mean that there would be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MODIFY_SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES to control the
>>>>>> following operations:
>>>>>>       * chmod(2)-variants through hook_path_chmod,
>>>>>>       * chown(2)-variants and chgrp(2)-variants through
>>>>>> hook_path_chown,
>>>>>>       * setxattr(2)-variants and removexattr(2)-variants for extended
>>>>>>         attributes that are not "user extended attributes" as
>>>>>> described in
>>>>>>         xattr(7) through hook_inode_setxattr and hook_inode_removexattr
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MODIFY_NON_SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES to control the
>>>>>> following operations:
>>>>>>       * utimes(2) and other operations for setting other non-security
>>>>>>         sensitive attributes, probably through hook_inode_setattr(?)
>>>>>>       * xattr modifications like above, but for the "user extended
>>>>>>         attributes", though hook_inode_setxattr and
>>>>>> hook_inode_removexattr
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my mind, this would be a sensible grouping, and it would also help
>>>>>> to decouple the userspace-exposed API from the underlying
>>>>>> implementation, as Casey suggested to do in [2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically for this patch set, if you want to use this grouping, you
>>>>>> would only need to add one new Landlock right
>>>>>> (LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MODIFY_SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES) as described above
>>>>>> under (a) (and maybe we can find a shorter name for it... :))?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I miss any operations here that would be necessary to restrict?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would that make sense to you? Xiu, what is your opinion on how this
>>>>>> should be grouped? Do you have use cases in mind where a more
>>>>>> fine-grained grouping would be required?
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize I may missed that discussion when I prepared v2:(
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, agreed, this grouping is more sensible and resonnable. so in this
>>>>> patchset only one right will be added, and I suppose the first commit
>>>>> which expand access_mask_t to u32 can be droped.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> —Günther
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S.: Regarding utimes: The hook_inode_setattr hook *also* gets called
>>>>>> on a variety on attribute changes including file ownership, file size
>>>>>> and file mode, so it might potentially interact with a bunch of other
>>>>>> existing Landlock rights. Maybe that is not the right approach. In any
>>>>>> case, it seems like it might require more thinking and it might be
>>>>>> sensible to do that in a separate patch set IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you reminder, that seems it's more complicated to support
>>>>> utimes, so I think we'd better not support it in this patchset.
>>>>
>>>> The issue with this approach is that it makes it impossible to properly
>>>> group such access rights. Indeed, to avoid inconsistencies and much more
>>>> complexity, we cannot extend a Landlock access right once it is defined.
>>>>
>>>> We also need to consider that file ownership and permissions have a
>>>> default (e.g. umask), which is also a way to set them. How to
>>>> consistently manage that? What if the application wants to protect its
>>>> files with chmod 0400?
>>>
>>> what do you mean by this? do you mean that we should have a set of
>>> default permissions for files created by applications within the
>>> sandbox, so that it can update metadata of its own file.
>>
>> I mean that we need a consistent access control system, and for this we
>> need to consider all the ways an extended attribute can be set.
>>
>> We can either extend the meaning of current access rights (controlled
>> with a ruleset flag for compatibility reasons), or create new access
>> rights. I think it would be better to add new dedicated rights to make
>> it more explicit and flexible.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the right approach to properly control file
>> permission. We need to think about it. Do you have some ideas?
>>
>> BTW, utimes can be controlled with the inode_setattr() LSM hook. Being
>> able to control arbitrary file time modification could be part of the
>> FS_WRITE_SAFE_METADATA, but modification and access time should always
>> be updated according to the file operation.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> About the naming, I think we can start with:
>>>> - LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_METADATA (read any file/dir metadata);
>>>> - LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_SAFE_METADATA: change file times, user xattr;
>>>
>>> do you mean we should have permission controls on metadata level or
>>> operation level? e.g. should we allow update on user xattr but deny
>>> update on security xattr? or should we disallow update on any xattr?
>>>
>>>> - LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_UNSAFE_METADATA: interpreted by the kernel
>>>> (could change non-Landlock DAC or MAC, which could be considered as a
>>>> policy bypass; or other various xattr that might be interpreted by
>>>> filesystems), this should be denied most of the time.
>>>
>>> do you mean FS_WRITE_UNSAFE_METADATA is security-related? and
>>> FS_WRITE_SAFE_METADATA is non-security-related?
>>
>> Yes, FS_WRITE_UNSAFE_METADATA would be for security related
>> xattr/chmod/chown, and FS_WRITE_SAFE_METADATA for non-security xattr.
>> Both are mutually exclusive. This would involve the inode_setattr and
>> inode_setxattr LSM hooks. Looking at the calling sites, it seems
>> possible to replace all inode arguments with paths.

I though about differentiating user xattr, atime/mtime, DAC 
(chown/chmod, posix ACLs), and other xattr, but it would be too complex 
to get a consistent approach because of indirect consequences (e.g. 
controlling umask, setegid, settimeofday…). Let's make it simple for now.

Here is an update on my previous proposal:

LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_METADATA to read any file/dir metadata (i.e. 
inode attr and xattr). In practice, for most use cases, this access 
right should be granted whenever LANDLOCK_ACCESS_READ_DIR is allowed.

LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_METADATA to *explicitly* write any inode attr 
or xattr (i.e. chmod, chown, utime, and all xattr). It should be noted 
that file modification time and access time should always be updated 
according to the file operation (e.g. write, truncate) even when this 
access is not explicitly allowed (according to vfs_utimes(), 
ATTR_TIMES_SET and ATTR_TOUCH should enable to differentiate from 
implicit time changes).


> 
> Sorry for the late reply, I have problems with this work, for example,
> before:
> security_inode_setattr(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
>                                            struct dentry *dentry,
>                                            struct iattr *attr)
> after:
> security_inode_setattr(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
>                                            struct path *path,
>                                            struct iattr *attr)
> then I change the second argument in notify_change() from struct *dentry
> to struct path *, that makes this kind of changes in fs/overlayfs/
> spread to lots of places because overlayfs basicly uses dentry instead
> of path, the worst case may be here:
> 
> ovl_special_inode_operations.set_acl hook calls:
> -->
> ovl_set_acl(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct dentry *dentry,
> struct posix_acl *acl, int type)
> -->
> ovl_setattr(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct dentry
> *dentry,struct iattr *attr)
> -->
> ovl_do_notify_change(struct ovl_fs *ofs, struct dentry *upperdentry,
> struct iattr *attr)
> 
> from the top of this callchain, I can not find a path to replace dentry,
> did I miss something? or do you have better idea?

I think this can be solved thanks to the ovl_path_real() helper.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists