Message-ID: <CACLa4pu6UCpzKfscVoEPzLySHitta1yTqPa7cA0d=xUj5ws6HA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:42:12 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	SE-Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>, jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices

Let me abstract a little here Paul.  Lets say user A starts an
unclassified process and a top secret process.  SELinux policy darn
well better be able to enforce that they can not attach to the same
tun.

Am I missing something here?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:33:49PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 07:26:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:04:35PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > > On Friday, December 07, 2012 02:25:16 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:09:51PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:57:16 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > > > > > > The SETQUEUE/tun_socket:create_queue permissions do not yet exist
>> > > > > > > in any released SELinux policy as we are just now adding them with
>> > > > > > > this patchset. With current policies loaded into a kernel with
>> > > > > > > this patchset applied the SETQUEUE/tun_socket:create_queue
>> > > > > > > permission would be treated according to the policy's unknown
>> > > > > > > permission setting.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > OK I think we need to rethink what we are doing here: what you sent
>> > > > > > addresses the problem as stated but I think we mis-stated it.  Let
>> > > > > > me try to restate the problem: it is not just selinux problem. Let's
>> > > > > > assume qemu wants to use tun, I (libvirt) don't want to run it as
>> > > > > > root.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. TUNSETIFF: I can open tun, attach an fd and pass it to qemu.
>> > > > > > Now, qemu does not invoke TUNSETIFF so it can run without
>> > > > > > kernel priveledges.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe libvirt does this while running
>> > > > > as root.  Assuming that is the case, why not simply setuid()/setgid()
>> > > > > to the same credentials as the QEMU instance before creating the TUN
>> > > > > device? You can always (re)configure the device afterwards while
>> > > > > running as root/CAP_NET_ADMIN.
>> > > >
>> > > > We want isolation between qemu instances.
>> > >
>> > > Understood, I agree.
>> > >
>> > > Achieving separation via SELinux is easily done, with libvirt/sVirt
>> > > already doing this for us automatically in most cases; the only thing we
>> > > will want to do is make sure the SELinux policy is aware of the new
>> > > permission.
>> > >
>> > > Achieving separation via DAC should also be easily done, simply run each
>> > > QEMU instance with a separate UID and/or GID.
>> > >
>> > > > Giving qemu right to open tun and SETIFF would give it rights
>> > > > to access any tun device.
>> > >
>> > > I'm quickly looked at tun_chr_open() again and I don't see any special
>> > > rights/privileges required, the same for tun_chr_ioctl() and
>> > > __tun_chr_ioctl().  Looking at tun_set_queue() I see we call
>> > > tun_not_capable() which does a simple DAC check; it must have the same
>> > > UID/GID or have CAP_NET_ADMIN.
>> > >
>> > > I'm having a hard time seeing the problem you are describing; help me
>> > > understand.
>> >
>> > The issue is guest controls the number of queues in use.
>> > So qemu would be required to be allowed to call tun_set_queue.
>> > If we allow this we have a problem as one qemu will be
>> > able to access any tun.
>>
>> QEMU can call tun_set_queue() as long as it satisfies tun_not_capable(), which
>> from a practical point of view means that the TUN device was created with the
>> same UID/GID as the QEMU instance.  If you want TUN device separation between
>> QEMU instances using DAC you need to run each QEMU instance with a different
>> UID/GID (which you should be doing anyway if you want DAC enforced general
>> separation).
>>
>> I believe I've stated this point several times now and I don't feel you've
>> addressed it properly.
>
> Look at how it works at the moment:
> a priveledged libvirt server calls tun_set_iff
> and passes the fd to qemu which is not priveledged.
>
> The result is isolation between qemu instances without
> need to create uid per qemu instance.
>
> How do we create multiple queues? It makes sense to
> follow this model and pass in fds for individual queues.
> However they need to be disabled initially
> so libvirt can not do tun_set_queue for us.
> When qemu later calls tun_set_queue it will fail which means we
> can't utilize multiqueue.
>
> My solution is an unpriveledged variant
> of tun_set_queue that only enables/disables
> a queue without attach/detach.
>
>
>> --
>> paul moore
>> security and virtualization @ redhat
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists