Message-ID: <20240819-keilen-urlaub-2875ef909760@brauner>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 13:16:04 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>, 
	Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>, "andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	"eddyz87@...il.com" <eddyz87@...il.com>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>, 
	"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>, "martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, 
	"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>, "mattbobrowski@...gle.com" <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, 
	Liam Wisehart <liamwisehart@...a.com>, Liang Tang <lltang@...a.com>, 
	Shankaran Gnanashanmugam <shankaran@...a.com>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for
 bpf_get_dentry_xattr

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 07:18:40AM GMT, Song Liu wrote:
> Hi Christian, 
> 
> Thanks again for your suggestions here. I have got more questions on
> this work. 
> 
> > On Jul 29, 2024, at 6:46 AM, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> I am not sure I follow the suggestion to implement this with 
> >> security_inode_permission()? Could you please share more details about
> >> this idea?
> > 
> > Given a path like /bin/gcc-6.9/gcc what that code currently does is:
> > 
> > * walk down to /bin/gcc-6.9/gcc
> > * walk up from /bin/gcc-6.9/gcc and then checking xattr labels for:
> >  gcc
> >  gcc-6.9/
> >  bin/
> >  /
> > 
> > That's broken because someone could've done
> > mv /bin/gcc-6.9/gcc /attack/ and when this walks back and it checks xattrs on
> > /attack even though the path lookup was for /bin/gcc-6.9. IOW, the
> > security_file_open() checks have nothing to do with the permission checks that
> > were done during path lookup.
> > 
> > Why isn't that logic:
> > 
> > * walk down to /bin/gcc-6.9/gcc and check for each component:
> > 
> >  security_inode_permission(/)
> >  security_inode_permission(gcc-6.9/)
> >  security_inode_permission(bin/)
> >  security_inode_permission(gcc)
> >  security_file_open(gcc)
> 
> I am trying to implement this approach. The idea, IIUC, is:
> 
> 1. For each open/openat, as we walk the path in do_filp_open=>path_openat, 
>    check xattr for "/", "gcc-6.9/", "bin/" for all given flags.
> 2. Save the value of the flag somewhere (for BPF, we can use inode local
>    storage). This is needed, because openat(dfd, ..) will not start from
>    root again. 
> 3. Propagate these flag to children. All the above are done at 
>    security_inode_permission. 
> 4. Finally, at security_file_open, check the xattr with the file, which 
>    is probably propagated from some parents.
> 
> Did I get this right? 
> 
> IIUC, there are a few issues with this approach. 
> 
> 1. security_inode_permission takes inode as parameter. However, we need 
>    dentry to get the xattr. Shall we change security_inode_permission
>    to take dentry instead? 
>    PS: Maybe we should change most/all inode hooks to take dentry instead?

security_inode_permission() is called in generic_permission() which in
turn is called from inode_permission() which in turn is called from
inode->i_op->permission() for various filesystems. So to make
security_inode_permission() take a dentry argument one would need to
change all inode->i_op->permission() to take a dentry argument for all
filesystems. NAK on that.

That's ignoring that it's just plain wrong to pass a dentry to
**inode**_permission() or security_**inode**_permission(). It's
permissions on the inode, not the dentry.

> 
> 2. There is no easy way to propagate data from parent. Assuming we already
>    changed security_inode_permission to take dentry, we still need some
>    mechanism to look up xattr from the parent, which is probably still 
>    something like bpf_dget_parent(). Or maybe we should add another hook 
>    with both parent and child dentry as input?
> 
> 3. Given we save the flag from parents in children's inode local storage, 
>    we may consume non-trivial extra memory. BPF inode local storage will 
>    be freed as the inode gets freed, so we will not leak any memory or 
>    overflow some hash map. However, this will probably increase the 
>    memory consumption of inode by a few percents. I think a "walk-up" 
>    based approach will not have this problem, as we don't need the extra
>    storage. Of course, this means more xattr lookups in some cases. 
> 
> > 
> > I think that dget_parent() logic also wouldn't make sense for relative path
> > lookups:
> > 
> > dfd = open("/bin/gcc-6.9", O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC);
> > 
> > This walks down to /bin/gcc-6.9 and then walks back up (subject to the
> > same problem mentioned earlier) and check xattrs for:
> > 
> >  gcc-6.9
> >  bin/
> >  /
> > 
> > then that dfd is passed to openat() to open "gcc":
> > 
> > fd = openat(dfd, "gcc", O_RDONLY);
> > 
> > which again walks up to /bin/gcc-6.9 and checks xattrs for:
> >  gcc
> >  gcc-6.9
> >  bin/
> >  /
> > 
> > Which means this code ends up charging relative lookups twice. Even if one
> > irons that out in the program this encourages really bad patterns.
> > Path lookup is iterative top down. One can't just randomly walk back up and
> > assume that's equivalent.
> 
> I understand that walk-up is not equivalent to walk down. But it is probably
> accurate enough for some security policies. For example, LSM LandLock uses
> similar logic in the file_open hook (file security/landlock/fs.c, function 
> is_access_to_paths_allowed). 

I'm not well-versed in landlock so I'll let Mickaël comment on this with
more details but there's very important restrictions and differences
here.

Landlock expresses security policies with file hierarchies and
security_inode_permission() doesn't and cannot have access to that.

Landlock is subject to the same problem that the BPF is here. Namely
that the VFS permission checking could have been done on a path walk
completely different from the path walk that is checked when walking
back up from security_file_open().

But because landlock works with a deny-by-default security policy this
is ok and it takes overmounts into account etc.

> 
> To summary my thoughts here. I think we need:
> 
> 1. Change security_inode_permission to take dentry instead of inode. 

Sorry, no.

> 2. Still add bpf_dget_parent. We will use it with security_inode_permission
>    so that we can propagate flags from parents to children. We will need
>    a bpf_dput as well. 
> 3. There are pros and cons with different approaches to implement this
>    policy (tags on directory work for all files in it). We probably need 
>    the policy writer to decide with one to use. From BPF's POV, dget_parent
>    is "safe", because it won't crash the system. It may encourage some bad
>    patterns, but it appears to be required in some use cases. 

You cannot just walk a path upwards and check permissions and assume
that this is safe unless you have a clear idea what makes it safe in
this scenario. Landlock has afaict. But so far you only have a vague
sketch of checking permissions walking upwards and retrieving xattrs
without any notion of the problems involved.

If you provide a bpf_get_parent() api for userspace to consume you'll
end up providing them with an api that is extremly easy to misuse.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists