linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Introduce security_file_ioctl

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]

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 12:36:31 -0500
From: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Alfred Piccioni <alpic@...gle.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, 
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Introduce security_file_ioctl_compat hook

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:11 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/18/2023 6:16 AM, Alfred Piccioni wrote:
>
> > Some ioctl commands do not require ioctl permission, but are routed to
> > other permissions such as FILE_GETATTR or FILE_SETATTR. This routing is
> > done by comparing the ioctl cmd to a set of 64-bit flags (FS_IOC_*).
> >
> > However, if a 32-bit process is running on a 64-bit kernel, it emits
> > 32-bit flags (FS_IOC32_*) for certain ioctl operations. These flags are
> > being checked erroneously, which leads to these ioctl operations being
> > routed to the ioctl permission, rather than the correct file
> > permissions.
> >
> > This was also noted in a RED-PEN finding from a while back -
> > "/* RED-PEN how should LSM module know it's handling 32bit? */".
> >
> > This patch introduces a new hook, security_file_ioctl_compat, that is
> > called from the compat ioctl syscal. All current LSMs have been changed
> > to support this hook.
> >
> > Reviewing the three places where we are currently using
> > security_file_ioctl, it appears that only SELinux needs a dedicated
> > compat change; TOMOYO and SMACK appear to be functional without any
> > change.
> >
> > Fixes: 0b24dcb7f2f7 ("Revert "selinux: simplify ioctl checking"")
> > Signed-off-by: Alfred Piccioni <alpic@...gle.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> This *really* needs to go the the LSM email list:
>         linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org

Yep, pointed that out a little earlier in this thread.

> > ---
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > index ac962c4cb44b..626aa8cf930d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > @@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, file_alloc_security, struct file *file)
> >  LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, file_free_security, struct file *file)
> >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, file_ioctl, struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> >        unsigned long arg)
> > +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, file_ioctl_compat, struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> > +      unsigned long arg)
>
> Please add a flags parameter to file_ioctl() rather than a new hook.

Paul told him the opposite earlier.