linux-kernel - f_modown and LSM inconsistency (was [PATCH v2 1/4] Landlock: Add signal control)

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: <20240809.se0ha8tiuJai@digikod.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 15:17:59 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, 
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Tahera Fahimi <fahimitahera@...il.com>, 
	gnoack@...gle.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: f_modown and LSM inconsistency (was [PATCH v2 1/4] Landlock: Add
 signal control)

Talking about f_modown() and security_file_set_fowner(), it looks like
there are some issues:

On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:44:06PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:59 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:

[...]

> > BTW, I don't understand why neither SELinux nor Smack use (explicit)
> > atomic operations nor lock.
> 
> Yeah, I think they're sloppy and kinda wrong - but it sorta works in
> practice mostly because they don't have to do any refcounting around
> this?
> 
> > And it looks weird that
> > security_file_set_fowner() isn't called by f_modown() with the same
> > locking to avoid races.
> 
> True. I imagine maybe the thought behind this design could have been
> that LSMs should have their own locking, and that calling an LSM hook
> with IRQs off is a little weird? But the way the LSMs actually use the
> hook now, it might make sense to call the LSM with the lock held and
> IRQs off...
> 

Would it be OK (for VFS, SELinux, and Smack maintainers) to move the
security_file_set_fowner() call into f_modown(), especially where
UID/EUID are populated.  That would only call security_file_set_fowner()
when the fown is actually set, which I think could also fix a bug for
SELinux and Smack.

Could we replace the uid and euid fields with a pointer to the current
credentials?  This would enables LSMs to not copy the same kind of
credential informations and save some memory, simplify credential
management, and improve consistency.