linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SHOULD_EXEC

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: <CALmYWFuFE=V7sGp0_K+2Vuk6F0chzhJY88CP1CAE9jtd=rqcoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:07:24 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>
To: Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>
Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>, 
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, 
	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>, 
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, 
	Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, 
	James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Jordan R Abrahams <ajordanr@...gle.com>, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 
	"Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, 
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>, Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, 
	Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, 
	Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, 
	Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, 
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and
 SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:25 PM Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2024 22:15, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > IIUC:
> > CHECK=0, RESTRICT=0: do nothing, current behavior
> > CHECK=1, RESTRICT=0: permissive mode - ignore AT_CHECK results.
> > CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1: call AT_CHECK, deny if AT_CHECK failed, no exception.
> > CHECK=1, RESTRICT=1: call AT_CHECK, deny if AT_CHECK failed, except
> > those in the "checked-and-allowed" list.
>
> I had much the same question for Mickaël while working on this.
>
> Essentially, "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=1" means to restrict without checking.
> In the context of a script or macro interpreter, this just means it will
> never interpret any scripts. Non-binary code execution is fully disabled
> in any part of the process that respects these bits.
>
I see, so Mickaël does mean this will block all scripts.
I guess, in the context of dynamic linker, this means: no more .so
loading, even "dlopen" is called by an app ?  But this will make the
execve()  fail.

> "CHECK=1, RESTRICT=1" means to restrict unless AT_CHECK passes. This
> case is the allow list (or whatever mechanism is being used to determine
> the result of an AT_CHECK check). The actual mechanism isn't the
> business of the script interpreter at all, it just has to refuse to
> execute anything that doesn't pass the check. So a generic interpreter
> can implement a generic mechanism and leave the specifics to whoever
> configures the machine.
>
In the context of dynamic linker. this means:
if .so passed the AT_CHECK, ldopen() can still load it.
If .so fails the AT_CHECK, ldopen() will fail too.

Thanks
-Jeff

> The other two case are more obvious. "CHECK=0, RESTRICT=0" is the
> zero-overhead case, while "CHECK=1, RESTRICT=0" might log, warn, or
> otherwise audit the result of the check, but it won't restrict execution.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve