| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbGjLQV0CsTwawiqHaGf4eObMQBJT-bpDpWOoQ8hNNcVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 11:17:39 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
brauner@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, sargun@...gun.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/17] bpf,lsm: add BPF token LSM hooks
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 9:01 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2023 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Wire up bpf_token_create and bpf_token_free LSM hooks, which allow to
> > allocate LSM security blob (we add `void *security` field to struct
> > bpf_token for that), but also control who can instantiate BPF token.
> > This follows existing pattern for BPF map and BPF prog.
> >
> > Also add security_bpf_token_allow_cmd() and security_bpf_token_capable()
> > LSM hooks that allow LSM implementation to control and negate (if
> > necessary) BPF token's delegation of a specific bpf_cmd and capability,
> > respectively.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++
> > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 5 +++
> > include/linux/security.h | 25 +++++++++++++++
> > kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 4 +++
> > kernel/bpf/token.c | 13 ++++++--
> > security/security.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> > index 08fd777cbe94..1d6edbf45d1c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/security.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ struct fs_parameter;
> > enum fs_value_type;
> > struct watch;
> > struct watch_notification;
> > +enum bpf_cmd;
>
> Yes, I think it's fine to include bpf.h in security.h instead of the
> forward declaration.
>
> > /* Default (no) options for the capable function */
> > #define CAP_OPT_NONE 0x0
> > @@ -2031,6 +2032,11 @@ extern void security_bpf_map_free(struct bpf_map *map);
> > extern int security_bpf_prog_load(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr,
> > struct bpf_token *token);
> > extern void security_bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > +extern int security_bpf_token_create(struct bpf_token *token, union bpf_attr *attr,
> > + struct path *path);
> > +extern void security_bpf_token_free(struct bpf_token *token);
> > +extern int security_bpf_token_allow_cmd(const struct bpf_token *token, enum bpf_cmd cmd);
> > +extern int security_bpf_token_capable(const struct bpf_token *token, int cap);
> > #else
> > static inline int security_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> > unsigned int size)
> > @@ -2065,6 +2071,25 @@ static inline int security_bpf_prog_load(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *
> >
> > static inline void security_bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > { }
> > +
> > +static inline int security_bpf_token_create(struct bpf_token *token, union bpf_attr *attr,
> > + struct path *path)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void security_bpf_token_free(struct bpf_token *token)
> > +{ }
> > +
> > +static inline int security_bpf_token_allow_cmd(const struct bpf_token *token, enum bpf_cmd cmd)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline int security_bpf_token_capable(const struct bpf_token *token, int cap)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Another nitpick, but I would prefer to shorten
> security_bpf_token_allow_cmd() renamed to security_bpf_token_cmd() both
> to shorten the name and to better fit convention. I realize the caller
> is named bpf_token_allow_cmd() but I'd still rather see the LSM hook
> with the shorter name.
Makes sense, renamed to security_bpf_token_cmd() and updated hook name as well
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/token.c b/kernel/bpf/token.c
> > index 35e6f55c2a41..5d04da54faea 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/token.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/token.c
> > @@ -7,11 +7,12 @@
> > #include <linux/idr.h>
> > #include <linux/namei.h>
> > #include <linux/user_namespace.h>
> > +#include <linux/security.h>
> >
> > bool bpf_token_capable(const struct bpf_token *token, int cap)
> > {
> > /* BPF token allows ns_capable() level of capabilities */
> > - if (token) {
> > + if (token && security_bpf_token_capable(token, cap) == 0) {
> > if (ns_capable(token->userns, cap))
> > return true;
> > if (cap != CAP_SYS_ADMIN && ns_capable(token->userns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>
> We typically perform the capability based access controls prior to the
> LSM controls, meaning if we want to the token controls to work in a
> similar way we should do something like this:
>
> bool bpf_token_capable(...)
> {
> if (token) {
> if (ns_capable(token, cap) ||
> (cap != ADMIN && ns_capable(token, ADMIN)))
> return security_bpf_token_capable(token, cap);
> }
> return capable(cap) || (cap != ADMIN && capable(...))
> }
yep, makes sense, I changed it as you suggested above
>
> > @@ -28,6 +29,7 @@ void bpf_token_inc(struct bpf_token *token)
> >
> > static void bpf_token_free(struct bpf_token *token)
> > {
> > + security_bpf_token_free(token);
> > put_user_ns(token->userns);
> > kvfree(token);
> > }
> > @@ -172,6 +174,10 @@ int bpf_token_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
> > token->allowed_progs = mnt_opts->delegate_progs;
> > token->allowed_attachs = mnt_opts->delegate_attachs;
> >
> > + err = security_bpf_token_create(token, attr, &path);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out_token;
> > +
> > fd = get_unused_fd_flags(O_CLOEXEC);
> > if (fd < 0) {
> > err = fd;
> > @@ -216,8 +222,9 @@ bool bpf_token_allow_cmd(const struct bpf_token *token, enum bpf_cmd cmd)
> > {
> > if (!token)
> > return false;
> > -
> > - return token->allowed_cmds & (1ULL << cmd);
> > + if (!(token->allowed_cmds & (1ULL << cmd)))
> > + return false;
> > + return security_bpf_token_allow_cmd(token, cmd) == 0;
>
> I'm not sure how much it really matters, but someone might prefer
> the '!!' approach/style over '== 0'.
it would have to be !security_bpf_token_cmd(), right? And that single
negation is just very confusing when dealing with int-returning
function. I find it much easier to make sure the logic is correct when
we have explicit `== 0`.
Like, when I see `return !security_bpf_token_cmd(...);`, my immediate
read of that is "return whether bpf_token_cmd is not allowed" or
something along those lines, giving me a huge pause... I have the same
relationship with strcmp(), btw, while people seem totally fine with
`!strcmp()` (which to me also reads backwards).
Anyways, unless you really feel strongly, I'd keep == 0 here and above
for security_bpf_token_capable(), just because it's int-returning
function result conversion to bool-returning result.
>
> > }
> >
> > bool bpf_token_allow_map_type(const struct bpf_token *token, enum bpf_map_type type)
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists