[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <892491bb-e7f4-4096-b502-f1bf2fd0fdec@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:04:45 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....cyber.gouv.fr>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kannappan R <r.kannappan@...el.com>,
Sabyrzhan Tasbolatov <snovitoll@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@...adex.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Pawel Laszczak <pawell@...ence.com>, Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@....com>,
Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com>,
Luc Bonnafoux <luc.bonnafoux@....gouv.fr>,
Luc Bonnafoux <luc.bonnafoux@....cyber.gouv.fr>,
Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] usb: core: Plug the usb authentication capability
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Nicolas Bouchinet wrote:
> We moved the `usb_authenticate_dev()` call in `usb_new_device()` in order to
> perform the authentication only once the device configuration is complete.
usb_new_device() does device initialization, not device configuration.
The default configuration is selected by usb_choose_configuration(), but
the config can be changed at any time by the user (via sysfs or usbfs).
> Also
> we think we need to split the problem of handling the authentication vs
> authorization in two parts.
>
> - which component has authority to set the two fields ?
> - where/how is it enforced ?
>
> To answer the first question :
>
> - We think that the authenticated field can only be set by the
> `usb_authenticate_dev()` function.
>
> - it is less clear for the authorized status which is already manipulated by
> the sysfs (usbguard) and the default hcd policy.
>
> The reconciliation between the two fields could be done at the enforcement
> point. In `usb_probe_interface()` instead of simply checking the authorized
> flag
> it could check a more complex policy. For example:
>
> +-------------------+----------------------------------------+----------------+
>
> | | authorized | not
> authorized |
> +-------------------+----------------------------------------+----------------+
>
> | authenticated | OK | NOK
> |
> +-------------------+----------------------------------------+----------------+
>
> | not authenticated | Depends on tolerance in local security
> | |
> | | policy (set by cmdline or sysctl) | NOK
> |
> +-------------------+----------------------------------------+----------------+
>
>
> This way it would also help to handle internal devices. When
> `hcd->dev_policy` is
> set to USB_DEVICE_AUTHORIZE_INTERNAL, only internal devices are authorized
> by
> default on connection. So external devices will have to be authenticated and
> then authorized via the sysfs. Internal devices will be authorized and not
> authenticated.
Okay, that seems like a reasonable approach.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists