linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] security: Enforce limitations on return values from LSMs

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: <700dffccdfeeb3d19c5385550e4c84f08c705e19.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 15:36:46 +0100
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, revest@...omium.org,
        jackmanb@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] security: Enforce limitations on return values
 from LSMs

On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 21:35 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:58 PM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > 
> > LSMs should not be able to return arbitrary return values, as the callers
> > of the LSM infrastructure might not be ready to handle unexpected values
> > (e.g. positive values that are first converted to a pointer with ERR_PTR,
> > and then evaluated with IS_ERR()).
> > 
> > Modify call_int_hook() to call is_ret_value_allowed(), so that the return
> > value from each LSM for a given hook is checked. If for the interval the
> > return value falls into the corresponding flag is not set, change the
> > return value to the default value, just for the current LSM.
> > 
> > A misbehaving LSM would not have impact on the decision of other LSMs, as
> > the loop terminates whenever the return value is not zero.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  security/security.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
> 
> Casey touched on some of this in his reply to patch 0/4, but basically
> I see this as a BPF LSM specific problem and not a generalized LSM
> issue that should be addressed at the LSM layer.  Especially if the
> solution involves incurring additional processing for every LSM hook
> instantiation, regardless if a BPF LSM is present.  Reading your
> overall patchset description I believe that you understand this too.

Yes, I had this concern too. Thanks Paul and Casey for taking the time
to reply.

I liked the fact that the fix is extremely simple, but nevertheless it
should not impact the performance, if there are alternative ways. I
thought maybe we look at non-zero values, since the check is already
there. But it could be that there is an impact for it too (maybe for
audit_rule_match?).

> If you want to somehow instrument the LSM hook definitions (what I
> believe to be the motivation behind patch 3/4) to indicate valid
> return values for use by the BPF verifier, I think we could entertain
> that, or at least discuss it further, but I'm not inclined to support
> any runtime overhead at the LSM layer for a specific LSM.

Ok, yes. Patches 1-3 would help to keep in sync the LSM infrastructure
and eBPF, but it is not strictly needed. I could propose an eBPF-only
alternative to declare sets of functions per interval.

More or less, I developed an eBPF-based alternative also for patch 4.
It is just a proof of concept. Will propose it, to validate the idea.

Thanks

Roberto