netdev - Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 12/16] audit: contid check descendancy and nesting

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: <CAHC9VhT1+mx_tVzyXD=UBqagqYgAFjZ=X1A6oBiMvjVCn8=V-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:29:05 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        sgrubb@...hat.com, omosnace@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        simo@...hat.com, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        nhorman@...driver.com, Dan Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
        mpatel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 12/16] audit: contid check descendancy and nesting

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Require the target task to be a descendant of the container
> orchestrator/engine.
>
> You would only change the audit container ID from one set or inherited
> value to another if you were nesting containers.
>
> If changing the contid, the container orchestrator/engine must be a
> descendant and not same orchestrator as the one that set it so it is not
> possible to change the contid of another orchestrator's container.
>
> Since the task_is_descendant() function is used in YAMA and in audit,
> remove the duplication and pull the function into kernel/core/sched.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/sched.h    |  3 +++
>  kernel/audit.c           | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  kernel/sched/core.c      | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 33 ---------------------------------
>  4 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

...

> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> index f7a8d3288ca0..ef8e07524c46 100644
> --- a/kernel/audit.c
> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> @@ -2603,22 +2610,43 @@ int audit_set_contid(struct task_struct *task, u64 contid)
>         oldcontid = audit_get_contid(task);
>         read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>         /* Don't allow the contid to be unset */
> -       if (!audit_contid_valid(contid))
> +       if (!audit_contid_valid(contid)) {
>                 rc = -EINVAL;
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }
>         /* Don't allow the contid to be set to the same value again */
> -       else if (contid == oldcontid) {
> +       if (contid == oldcontid) {
>                 rc = -EADDRINUSE;
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }
>         /* if we don't have caps, reject */
> -       else if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL))
> +       if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL)) {
>                 rc = -EPERM;
> -       /* if task has children or is not single-threaded, deny */
> -       else if (!list_empty(&task->children))
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }
> +       /* if task has children, deny */
> +       if (!list_empty(&task->children)) {
>                 rc = -EBUSY;
> -       else if (!(thread_group_leader(task) && thread_group_empty(task)))
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }
> +       /* if task is not single-threaded, deny */
> +       if (!(thread_group_leader(task) && thread_group_empty(task))) {
>                 rc = -EALREADY;
> -       /* if contid is already set, deny */
> -       else if (audit_contid_set(task))
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }

It seems like the if/else-if conversion above should be part of an
earlier patchset.

> +       /* if task is not descendant, block */
> +       if (task == current) {
> +               rc = -EBADSLT;
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }
> +       if (!task_is_descendant(current, task)) {
> +               rc = -EXDEV;
> +               goto unlock;
> +       }

I understand you are trying to provide a unique error code for each
failure case, but this is getting silly.  Let's group the descendent
checks under the same error code.

> +       /* only allow contid setting again if nesting */
> +       if (audit_contid_set(task) && audit_contid_isowner(task))
>                 rc = -ECHILD;

Should that be "!audit_contid_isowner()"?

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com