linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface

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: <CAHC9VhQDvWDshaZvJrHmjcwyHFxv9oYTN9bn0xiTtFZQRp+GPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:45:41 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, tytso@....edu, ebiggers@...nel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
        eparis@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 3:10 PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58???PM Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > As is typical with LSMs, IPE uses securityfs as its interface with
> > > userspace. for a complete list of the interfaces and the respective
> > > inputs/outputs, please see the documentation under
> > > admin-guide/LSM/ipe.rst
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > ---
> > >  security/ipe/Makefile    |   2 +
> > >  security/ipe/fs.c        | 101 +++++++++
> > >  security/ipe/fs.h        |  17 ++
> > >  security/ipe/ipe.c       |   3 +
> > >  security/ipe/ipe.h       |   2 +
> > >  security/ipe/policy.c    | 135 ++++++++++++
> > >  security/ipe/policy.h    |   7 +
> > >  security/ipe/policy_fs.c | 459 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  8 files changed, 726 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.c
> > >  create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.h
> > >  create mode 100644 security/ipe/policy_fs.c

...

> > > +/**
> > > + * ipe_update_policy - parse a new policy and replace @old with it.
> > > + * @addr: Supplies a pointer to the i_private for saving policy.
> > > + * @text: Supplies a pointer to the plain text policy.
> > > + * @textlen: Supplies the length of @text.
> > > + * @pkcs7: Supplies a pointer to a buffer containing a pkcs7 message.
> > > + * @pkcs7len: Supplies the length of @pkcs7len.
> > > + *
> > > + * @text/@...tlen is mutually exclusive with @pkcs7/@...s7len - see
> > > + * ipe_new_policy.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return:
> > > + * * !IS_ERR   - OK
> > > + * * -ENOENT   - Policy doesn't exist
> > > + * * -EINVAL   - New policy is invalid
> > > + */
> > > +struct ipe_policy *ipe_update_policy(struct ipe_policy __rcu **addr,
> > > +                                    const char *text, size_t textlen,
> > > +                                    const char *pkcs7, size_t pkcs7len)
> > > +{
> > > +       int rc = 0;
> > > +       struct ipe_policy *old, *new;
> > > +
> > > +       old = ipe_get_policy_rcu(*addr);
> > > +       if (!old) {
> > > +               rc = -ENOENT;
> > > +               goto err;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       new = ipe_new_policy(text, textlen, pkcs7, pkcs7len);
> > > +       if (IS_ERR(new)) {
> > > +               rc = PTR_ERR(new);
> > > +               goto err;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (strcmp(new->parsed->name, old->parsed->name)) {
> > > +               rc = -EINVAL;
> > > +               goto err;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (ver_to_u64(old) > ver_to_u64(new)) {
> > > +               rc = -EINVAL;
> > > +               goto err;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (ipe_is_policy_active(old)) {
> >
> > I don't understand the is-active check, you want to make @new the new
> > active policy regardless, right?  Could this is-active check ever be
> > false?
>
> Actually this is needed. Policy updates can be applied to any deployed
> policy, which may be saved in two places: the securityfs file node
> and the ipe_active_policy pointer. To update a policy, this function first
> checks if the policy saved in the securityfs file node is currently active.
> If so, it updates the ipe_active_policy pointer to point to the new policy,
> and finally updates the policy pointer in the securityfs to the new policy.

Ah, okay.  I must have forgotten, or not realized, that multiple
policies could be loaded and not active.

I guess this does make me wonder about keeping a non-active policy
loaded in the kernel, what purpose does that serve?

-- 
paul-moore.com